Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!ucbvax!CSNET-RELAY.ARPA!MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com
From: MUKHOP%RCSJJ%gmr.com@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Creativity and Analogy
Message-ID: <8606120642.AA05437@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 10-Jun-86 15:04:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8606120642.AA05437
Posted: Tue Jun 10 15:04:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 12-Jun-86 19:15:50 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 23
Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa


   At a recent talk in Ann Arbor, Roger Schank observed/implied that 
a distinct characteristic of many creative people is the ability to 
analogize. My understanding of analogizing is to define transformations 
between two domains so that entities and relationships in one domain 
can be mapped into corresponding entities and relationships in the 
other domain. It appears that the greater the disparity in the "physics"
of the two domains, the higher is the creative effort demanded.
   Not all transformations produce interesting results. Good analogies 
must be interesting from the perspective of the particular creative 
activity.
   Is this model of creativity--making interesting analogies--valid 
across the spectrum of creative actvities, from the hard sciences 
(Physics, Chemistry, etc.) to the fine arts (painting, music)? 
Is there more to creativity than making interesting analogies? I am 
inclined to believe that making interesting analogies is at the heart 
of all intelligent activity that is described as creative.

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
General Motors Research Labs.
(313)575-2105

Net address: mukhop@gmr.com