Submited on: 23 Dec 2010 04:52:21 PM GMT
Published on: 23 Dec 2010 04:53:17 PM GMT
 
Creativity as a part of KI
Posted by Dr. Sergey Petrov on 16 May 2012 03:54:07 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    The article is huge and complicated, therefore any review can be adequate only to its particular aspects. In short, author uses his Model of Mind to define the Knowledge Instinct. Satisfaction of this instinct implies aesthetics pleasure. To be a little more accurate (but far from really close to the article), one would add that models stored in our brain are organized into a hierarchical structure and KI mechanism works differently on higher levels. Starting with Kant, author considers Kant’s “judgment” as ability to compare models to perceptions and success of such a process as a source of our aesthetical satisfaction. All these seem to be very appealing and have an aesthetically satisfying explanatory power. Nevertheless two aspects of the problem seem to be neglected. In addition to KI, all of us (or almost all of us) have a CI, Creative Instinct pushing us towards creating new objects of all possible kinds – from texts to dances and fragrances – that we consider as art objects. Also, art perception and new knowledge acquisition usually works only once for particular piece of art and knowledge. Actually, we enjoy the same art object when encounter it second, third, and so on, time but this pleasure is quite different from one we have when meet the object first time. Going back to Kant, there is no guarantee that all phenomena reflecting things-in-themselves in our brain create an adequate picture of the world, we are not sure that expressed and expressible concepts (or models) adequately represent the content of our mind. More accurately, surprises from our subconsciousness assure us daily that any way expressible part of our inner world is its small subset. As the result, we are not only satisfy our KI by matching perceptions to models but also exploit CI creating new models and revealing them to the world as art objects.  

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    AI

  • How to cite:  Petrov S .Creativity as a part of KI[Review of the article 'Beauty And Art. Cognitive Function, Evolution, And Mathematical Models Of The Mind ' by Perlovsky L].WebmedCentral 2011;3(5):WMCRW001819
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Partly
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    A very good and innovative article. I’d like to point out to the unfortunate vagueness of the underlying instinctual-emotional theory of emotions developed by Grossberg and Levine (1987). Regrettably, not much consensus has been reached about these fundamental concepts since 1987.

     
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

     

     
  • How to cite:  Ovsich A J.a review for the "Beauty And Art. Cognitive Function, Evolution, And Mathematical Models Of The Mind"[Review of the article 'Beauty And Art. Cognitive Function, Evolution, And Mathematical Models Of The Mind ' by Perlovsky L].WebmedCentral 2011;2(11):WMCRW001136
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Untitled
Posted by Dr. Anatoly V Temkin on 28 Feb 2011 07:55:18 AM GMT

  • Other Comments:

    This paper by Perlovsky attempts to answer my questions raised by the previous paper by Perlovsky, Cabanac, and Cabanac. What is beauty?  Why did human evolution evolve such a strange ability? Looking at contemporary art, indeed I often thought that it is activity of gangs of hooligans, not something required by evolution.
    All philosophically inclined contemporary art critics refer to Kant. Either Kant was right, ingeniously right, or completely wrong. Kant is not a fun reading, but reading contemporary experts on Kant, especially when they try to explain what Kant meant, I have not been sure they know what they are talking about. Kant as everybody knows tried to explain the beautiful from knowledge. And he came to a conclusion that the beautiful is a purpose without purpose. Not the most clear statement. I could never read his single book to the end. So I was very happy to find Perlovsky’s explanation why high-headed estheticians are discussing Kant all the time, but cannot write a single paragraph that would be really understandable. Perlovsky’s explanation is simple indeed: Kant was missing one idea, the idea of the instinct for knowledge. The same idea that Perlovsky, and his co-authors in the other paper, were trying to prove experimentally. The content of the highest knowledge, Perlovsky write, the knowledge of the meaning of life cannot be understood, but we cannot live without trying to. It is like a horizon line, the closer we come, the more it recedes. And in the process, sometimes we feel the beautiful.
    I am not sure I understood Perlovsky, but at least it seems to make sense, and it seems I understand why I could not understand Kant.
    Perlovsky’s explanations of what is wrong with various schools of art critiques are intriguing. No less intriguing are his explanations what is right and what is wrong with contemporary art. I am not sure we would agree on every art piece, but at least it makes sense. May be I would look differently on some contemporary art.

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Temkin A V.Untitled[Review of the article 'Beauty And Art. Cognitive Function, Evolution, And Mathematical Models Of The Mind ' by Perlovsky L].WebmedCentral 2011;2(2):WMCRW00522
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? Yes
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    In this paper Dr. Perlovksy  offers a most interesting and instructive overview of his ideas on the mathematical understanding of thinking processes, its conscious and unconscious aspects, mechanisms of concepts, instincts, emotions, cognition, language, as well as  the  possibility of understanding aesthetic emotions.

     

    It is well-known that the fulfillment of the basic needs of an organism are guaranteed by inborn instincts, which  are like internal sensors measuring vital parameters of the organism.  Dr. Perlovsky claims that the need for "understanding is so important that there is an unconditional instinct driving this need; driving it independently from satisfaction or dissatisfaction of other instincts. This is the so-called knowledge instinct, which works as follows. Mental models of mind have to be brought in correspondence with the world. Correspondence between the models and the world is knowledge and the failure to attain this correspondence generates dissatisfaction and confusion. The mathematical theory called Neural Modeling Fields-Dynamic Logic (NMF-DL) describes how the  correspondence or similarity between models and sensory data is achieved.

     

    Although NMF-DL indeed addresses important issues, which are plagued by computational complexity as discussed at length by Dr. Perlovksy, in my view it has little explanative power concerning the fundamental question here, namely, where do the mental models come from?  The situation is very similar to Chomsky’s Principles and Parameters and Universal grammar assumptions, which admit the inborn existence of hugely complex structures  that are ultimately responsible for humans’ linguistic ability, and  relegates learning to the co-adjuvant role of setting the parameters of the model.  In essence, we are left with a minor variation of Plato’s view that Ideas or Forms are given a priori, except that some components of the Forms are now considered flexible.

     

    I conclude with a quote by J.D. Salinger that may illustrate the notion of knowledge instinct from the artists’ perspective:

    "An artist's only concern is to shoot for some kind of perfection, and on his own terms, not anyone else's."

     

     

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Average to high

  • How to cite:  Fontanari .Modern theories of mind must go beyond Plato to gain explanative power[Review of the article 'Beauty And Art. Cognitive Function, Evolution, And Mathematical Models Of The Mind ' by Perlovsky L].WebmedCentral 2011;1(12):WMCRW00293
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse