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!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!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: <8606250659.AA08024@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 19-Jun-86 20:54:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8606250659.AA08024
Posted: Thu Jun 19 20:54:00 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Jun-86 17:34:16 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 26
Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa

Jay Weber states:
>I believe that one could give a reasonable definition of analogy that
>encompasses all intelligent activity, or at least inductive learning
>(which is a biggie as far as intelligence goes).  

   I think inductive learning is only half of the story. The other half
is to instantiate what is learned, in another domain.  

>I question, however,
>how useful it is in AI to relate a slippery word like "analogy" to an
>even slipperier word like "creativity".  A formal approach with those
>two terms will satisfy very few people, and an informal approach will
>only give us an inflated opinion of the value of our own research,
>which is largely why people make such comparisons.

   Yes, I do want to understand "creativity" in terms of less slippery 
concepts, such as "analogy".  We are forced to start with informal 
approaches but hope to find more formal definitions.  I do not 
understand why a formal approach would satisfy very few people or 
why an informal approach would serve no useful purpose. 
I am sure that you do not imply that an analysis (formal or informal)
of >anything< is futile. What is it about "creativity" that makes its
analysis a no-win proposition?

Uttam Mukhopadhyay
GM Research Labs