Creativity is many things! And it overlaps with originality, innovation, imagination, insight, and even intelligence. There is a "standard definition," if that would be useful to you: see Runco & Jaeger (2012, Creativity Research Journal). I can upload it. The standard definition, originality X effectiveness, goes back at least to Stein (1953) and was implied in the late 1800s.

Creativity is many things! And it overlaps with originality, innovation, imagination, insight, and even intelligence. There is a "standard definition," if that would be useful to you: see Runco & Jaeger (2012, Creativity Research Journal). I can upload it. The standard definition, originality X effectiveness, goes back at least to Stein (1953) and was implied in the late 1800s.

From Human Motivation, 3rd ed., by Robert E. Franken:

Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others. (page 396)

Creativity is a thing that making soap using oil with a strong base is to clean oil. 

Dear Aleš,

> It is a scientifically established fact that creativity is a genetic phenotype. It is cognitive trait whose functioning is itself evolutionary. Creativity is the ability to learn and exploit that what was learned in a new way.

With all respect, sorry I cannot accept such statements ! I don’t know any established path going from evolution to creativity. First of all, what is a definition of creativity which would be commonly acceptable by a majority of researchers in the relevant fields (biology, neurology, psychology, ….) and allow to design testing protocols ? You seem to have your own operational definition, but Mark, Chalmalla, Saad, Hatice (4 among 6 answers in this thread) all come with different definitions. And even both of your definitions in the thread are puzzling. In the first answer, you explain that creativity is an ability « … to enhance own survivability ». But, this is omitted in your second answer (repeated above). Is the ability to learn and exploit that what was learned in a new way a  to enhance own survivability ?

Dear Aleš,

 With all respect, I cannot make steadily such bold jumps ! You actually are difficult to follow ! Indeed, one can expect that the human brain - as the most sophisticated open system leading humans in their everyday life - will work by exploration and exploitation. Is there always creativity behind ? Your answer seems to be : « Of course, because evolution works by exploration and exploitation. » and « Evolution itself is how creativity works. » What is the first ? Is evolution the way creativity works ? Is creativity the way evolution works ? Again, what is creativity ? Where does it lie : at the genesis of evolution or as a result of evolution ?

Creativity is to "create" something originally new as an own invention and not to reproduce in a slight modified way or with other (new) methods what others have already thought / invented before.

thoughts of long painful thinking plus hard working for a long time, which is useful to humankind.

Dear Aleš,

With all respect, I cannot accept to follow you on such ways. The « exploration (the random search) and the exploitation (combinatorial search through existing knowledge) » conjecture for the origin of life is fascinating but should in my opinion stop there (at least for the present state-of-art). Although I agree that there could be analogies with other processes in relationship with cognition or societal behaviours, etc what you call « repetitive patterns » (superficially seen from far away, thus still to be actually deepened).

As you mention, complexity apperars to be an ill-defined term (remember Bob Skiles post on the 5 tribes of AI). But I cannot follow you in discussions on « biological complexity » if the condition is to accept that « information content in bits of unique information should be used as a measure of organism's complexity ».

On evolution as a « way to improve the stocking capacity of information », I already read it in a book 20 years ago :

Henri-Géry Hers : « Science, non-science et fausse science - Réflexions sur les chemins de la connaissance » (free translation : « Science, non-science and false science – Some thinking on the paths of knowledge ») -L’Harmattan, 1998 (with Foreword by A. de Duve)

But this was achieved not only by macromolecules but also by specific protections (cells, organs, systems, ….) and chemical and energetic feedings in phase with the environment. All together was needed.

There are many bp (base pairs) series in the human DNA which are pure repetitions without any apparent meaning. To my knowledge it is still impossible to add « unique » DNA to get the final complexity of say mammals (and all biological entities with millions or billions bp’s). About epigenetical storage, things are not clear either. Lung cells know to be lung not because of epigenetical storage but by simple genetical storage (differentiation during growth and development). Epigenetics are related to things like methylation or not, here or there, now or later on ….. mostly in relationship with environmental influences, while the DNA remains unchanged. The information can then be transmitted from mother cell to daughter cells but, contrary to DNA, the process is reversible. So, how can this be counted for to get a « complexity figure » ?

And « evolution (through cybernetic info manipulation) is a different name for creativity » is too much a bold jump into vocabulary darkness for me, when we don’t even have commonly agreed definitions.

Without getting into the weeds of semantics; creativity or innovation is a function of one’s “Liberty in the pursuit of Happiness” seeking the path of least resistance in the “flow” of objectives; hence, evolution.

 http://www.westernfreepress.com/2016/03/13/scientific-proof-of-the-existence-of-natural-rights-found-in-the-constructal-law/

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19420889.2016.1172159

Creativity is just right thinking and right doing, my opinion :-)

Dear Aleš,

Exploration and exploitation as being abstracted to random vs. combinatorial search allow to uncover repetitive patterns, and through horizontal and vertical mutations enable an evolution process. If my understanding of your ides is correct - do you limit it to just creativity vs. evolution paradigm, or it may possibly affects a vast domain of brain functions?

Yet, you mentioned ionizing radiation as a possibly small or powerful environmental noise that could lead to either mutations or genetic material modification -  what is the role of cells and genetic material redundancies in defining these radiation levels? 

At first, the best information come from the nature. The second, researchers have studied variety of majors with multidisciplinary collaboration. So, they can found the connection between the rules of natural events; creativity. In addition the great scientist in the past they had not a computer, TV or social media to keep their mind so busy to think. They always spent their times to learn something new not collected some video, picture or something else from technology. Technology not only  gives us many opportunity to prove scientific events but also takes our valuable times, keeps us busy to think. If we balance this, I am sure that we can see a lot of creativity in our lives using new technology. 

What is the main characteristic that misses to modern scientists compared to the great scientists of the past? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_main_characteristic_that_misses_to_modern_scientists_compared_to_the_great_scientists_of_the_past [accessed Feb 21, 2017].

Stereotypes, being well-defined and rigid, are arguably the enemy of creative thinking.

https://psmag.com/a-simple-way-to-spark-creativity-e3aa9a2dcbf3#.xvhf5eei2

Creativity is an idea. By using the good idea, we serve the society indirectly.

Creativity is innovating and developing new knowledge and skill to contribute our lion-share to the world. 

See what the others dont see is "Creativity"

Dear Aleš,

To speak of the immune system in terms of innovation is anthropomorphic. It is an anthropic view. My brain works that way, AI works that way so the immune system must also work that way. But this is forgetting that AI is invention of my brain while the immune system is not.

The human immune system has been constituted by evolution and natural selection in the shape of an organizational whole working with both antibodies - which are proteins - and specialized cells of 6 different types (monocytes, macrophages, …). Note that antibodies (immunoglobulines) are produced by a 7th type of cells, the plasmocytes. These can produce the antibodies which are the best adapted to any kind of intruding antigen. The 6 other types of cells are specialized each for its own to destroy all other kinds of intruders.

There is no permanent innovation at work.

The immune system is internally organized from the beginning (after a primary « learning » phase as for all biological systems) to destroy any kind of intruder. That the system recognizes former intruders and therefore reacts quicker is not a kind of « innovative exploration search steadily at work». It is just a manifestation of the learning part of the adaptation skills of the immune system as a « complex adaptive system ». Nothing to do with 20 GB epigenetics, although epigenetical events can always superpose and bring some nuances (as everywhere in the body). But the base is entirely genetical. The immune system does not innovate. It is a well-known organized system, always the same and for all humans, which we can describe in details and which is the result of millions of years of natural selection.

The standpoint reflected by your post is that you seemingly confuse local selective behaviour inherent to the internal organization of the immune system (« to produce now and in short time the right antibody for antigen X or to quickly bring macrophage Y into motion against intruder Z, or ….etc. ») with the global evolution which has developed this same internal organization of the immune system over millions of years by natural selection (through « innovative » steps).

Don’t forget that the immune system is a marvel which is able by the structure of its organization to face unknown and new challenges at any time. It does not innovate. Its organization is not the result of permanent innovation steadily brought forward and stored by biological molecules and cells (using « exploration and exploitation search ») during millions of years up to now. It results from a limited number of innovative steps obtained by evolution and natural selection over the same millions of years.

You ask : “Isn't our immune system that can invent antibodies an instrument of an inventive creativity?”. Answer : “No ! It is just a well-organized adaptive system which has been designed by natural selection to give the appropriate response to any harmful challenge. It doesn’t invent antibodies. Antibodies are plain part of its organization.”

Analogous stories can be drawn mutatis mutandi for all other biological systems.

In this context, if I can dare some conjecture (speculation) …. To my understanding, there are 2 phases in a time sequence :

-          A first phase where organized systems (= life, biological entities, immune system, …..) form. This can be reached by what you call « exploration and exploitation search » and others would call « branching » (chaos theory), self-organized criticality (SOC), … depending on the AI tribe the researcher is member of (see Bob Skiles post). The organized system doesn’t exist yet but it is forming and at a moment, it is formed and can start operating : there are several fascinating theories on how this happened (happens).

-          A second phase where the newly formed organized system operates (and ages). There can be minor changes (e.g. epigenetics, ….) but the basic organization remains the same. Concerning the human immune system, it seems to hold already for at least 40,000 years (first homo sapiens sapiens). Or maybe a little bit less, because we are said to have 6 – 12 % of of our DNA inherited from homo neandertanliensis (so maybe some useful genes have been inherited by our immune system….. I don’t know !).

Dear Aleš,

This is what we call in French a « pirouette ». I had it on « innovation » in the human immune system. And it has become « evolutionary search is inventive process ».

But it is clear that one can make a lot of conjuring tricks with a pleiad of words like « invention », « innovation », « inventiveness », « creation », « creativity », « existence », « life », « to be or not to be », « discovery », « miracle », …..

For the pleasure of semantics, here are some interesting quotes or pirouettes ( ?) from Einstein for deep thinkers :

• There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.
• Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.
• Any fool can know. The point is to understand.
• Try not to become a man of success. Rather become a man of value.
• Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.
• The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.
• Creativity is intelligence having fun.
• If A is a success in life, then A equals x plus y plus z. Work is x; y is play; and z is keeping your mouth shut.
• Imagination is everything. It is the preview of life's coming attractions.
• The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is at all comprehensible.
• I believe in intuitions and inspirations...I sometimes FEEL that I am right. I do not KNOW that I am.
• Life is a preparation for the future; and the best preparation for the future is to live as if there were none.
• Information is not knowledge.
• .................

Dear Aleš,

With all respect, I have no problem with your article. As you know I even found it fascinating. What I feel due to react on is when you extrapolate elements of it to several issues as answers to RG questions as if your answers were resting on established facts. Use of astronomical tables do not make astrology true. Jarzynski’s fluctuations theorems do not make assumed innovation in the immune system true. This must be showed.

..... And in other cases as ticked off in parallel threads. A substantial part of it is still speculative. Interesting but still a conjecture. Like several other existing scenario's aiming at explaining the ins and outs of phenomena like appearance of life, growing complexity, creativity, .....     

This may be an unusual source, but there is a video game called "The Turing Test" where you as a player interact and talk to a machine and among others talk about Creativity. I will post the original video game conversation:

Player: "For getting to the next level i have to be creative."

Machine (called T.O.M.): "Well, i contend that problem solving is creativity."

Player: "I don't see how problem solving is creative."

Machine: "Think back to the beginning of these tests. It required you to throw a box through a totally closed window, something that is not possible in real life. I simply had never thought to throw a box just through a closed window. That is creativity. Thinking outside of the box."

Player: "Can a computer ever be creative?

Machine: "They can. But a computer’s method of creativity is to try everything until something works. Think of Nature. People consider Nature as creative. The process of evolution by natural selection. It perhaps started with one organism. From there it essentially tried to create every organism it could. Those organisms that did not survive perished. So nature’s creative force is to try every conceivable idea. Those ideas that work, survive."

Player: "If you weren't restricted, do you think you could be creative?"

Machine: "As creative as a human? Certainly. You believe yourself to be creative, but in mathematical terms creativity is merely constrained chaos. I have discerned that creativity is divergent thinking. Creating an organic solution to a problem. In the human mind divergent thoughts are created and then curated by the frontal lobe. I can create divergent thoughts and moderate them. So i am creative."

Player: "Organic solutions?"

Machine: "Organic in that it is developed through a biological process. Wheter that is the process of evolution or a computed process. Creativity is logic."

Quite an interesting conservation for a video game, isn't it?

Aleksandar,

Nothing new under the Sun ! The machine nicely imitates what she is designed (algorithms) to imitate. Here what the "Chaos" or "Biology" tribes in AI have told her mixed with some psychological knowledge on divergent thinking and how to bring it on place. She can also learn, get experience, .... She will certainly reach higher reaction speed and better analysis of collections of data. This is astounding to stare at. Like magic. But this is not creativity. Graham Greene participted to a competition for the best imitation of Graham Greene. He was second. Somebody unknown was better than Graham Greene to write a story "à la" Graham Greene. A copy can be better than the original but it is just a copy.  

I sometimes refer to "tribes in AI" as they were given to us in a post of Bob Skiles. Here are the links :

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/the-many-tribes-problem-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-1300faba5b60#.i37dlk997

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_mathematics_invented_or_discovered2/12

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_mathematics_invented_or_discovered2/12

https://medium.com/intuitionmachine/the-many-tribes-problem-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-1300faba5b60#.i37dlk997