創造性の源は「ランダムネス」Randomness as the origin of creativity

Randomness as the origin of creativity

Posted on April 12, 2017 by GENETIC FRACTALS

わたしのnoteにおいては、最新の科学・経済・社会等の問題に関して、英語の記事を引用し、その英文が読み易いように加工し、「英語の勉強ツール」と「最新情報収集ツール」としてご利用頂くことをmain missionとさせて頂きます。勿論、私論を書かせて頂くこともしばしです。

この論文においては、「random構造の構築方法」とそれらから創造的good solutionを見出す「selection方法の設定問題」に関し言及しており、storyとしては、理解しやすいと思いました。

When looking at the creative advances in technology, art, science or society that really changed the story of humanity, we see that they are all quantum leaps. What does that mean? It means that true innovation requires a departure from that [which is already known]. This is much more than out of the box thinking (型にはまった考え方); this concerns a radical departure from mainstream thinking.

In my experimentation with random fractals
＜マンデルブローは「フラクタル」というものを数学的に扱えるように大きく２つの特徴づけをしました。１つ目は「自己相似性」です。もう１つの特徴は「ギザギザ性」です。ものの形は普通「はっきり」としており、三角形や四角形、円など、境界線がある意味「スムーズ」につながっています。いままでの数学ではこのような理想的な形のものしか扱えませんでした。しかし、現実世界を見ると、例えば株価の推移や、煙突から出る煙の動きなど、実は私たちの周りにはギザギザで複雑な形であふれています。そこでフラクタルという理論が必要になってくるわけです。＞
I’ve come up with an interesting mechanism. By producing random shapes / I noticed that / some bear (持つ、有する/bέər) resemblance with shapes we see in nature. But equally and more importantly, some of these random forms I have never seen before and they are stunningly beautiful. In fact, I couldn’t create such forms myself because their aesthetic (美［美学］の［に関する］/esθétik) value wouldn’t occur to me until after their creation. But I am able to appreciate them for what they are once I see them.

What if this is the very mechanism of creativity?  The combination of random experimentation combined with our ability to recognize a valuable solution when we see it?

In other words, keep messing around (時間を浪費する、ブラブラする) until you find it. I’ve been a student of creativity for the past 30 years, always looking for ways to stimulate creativity when needed. In the West I have found that Edward de Bono
＜Edward Charles Francis Publius de Bono (19 May 1933 – 9 June 2021) was a Maltese physician, psychologist, author, inventor, philosopher, and consultant. He originated the term "lateral thinking".＞
＜"lateral thinking"：水平思考は、問題解決のために既成の理論や概念にとらわれずアイデアを生み出す方法である。エドワード・デボノが1967年頃に提唱した。デボノは従来の論理的思考や分析的思考を垂直思考(Vertical thinking)として、論理を深めるには有効である一方で、斬新な発想は生まれにくいとしている。これに対して水平思考は多様な視点から物事を見ることで直感的な発想を生み出す方法である。垂直思考を既に掘られている穴を奥へ掘り進めるのに例えるのなら、水平思考は新しく穴を掘り始めるのに相当する。＞
gets closest to providing a reliable method for creative thinking. He calls it lateral thinking and his methods are based on the idea that most of our thinking is linear and associative. Every thought we have leads to the next thought and so on. But if the breakthrough thought that we need is not connected in any way with any of our habitual thoughts, we can never think of it. And by definition breakthrough thoughts haven’t been had by anyone so they will never link to anyone’s thoughts if we follow linear thinking.

Lateral thinking is based on deliberately breaking associative and linear thinking. De Bono proposes many methods but they all rely on generating unconnected random thoughts. yes, random thoughts.

But in the East, the approach to creativity is contemplative and involves different forms of meditation. It would be impossible to provide a fair one line summary of eastern creativity but my incomplete one liner (裏地/láinər) would be that we put ourselves in a state where a creative need is communicated to our subconscious mind which has a generative capacity that by far exceeds our conscious brain. When the subconscious mind finds a creative solution, it will pass it back to the conscious brain and provided that (ただし～ならば、～という条件で) we are mindful, i.e. are paying attention, then we will have a near perfect answer to our creative challenge.

But my random genetic fractals tell an intriguing story which has its parallels. Creativity is about detecting original solutions among those we haven’t seen as yet. And we can find those unseen solutions by “closing our eyes” and generate them randomly.

This leaves us with two challenges. How do you create random solutions?  And how do you recognize a good solution when you see one?

この部分は、まさに、random構造の構築方法とそれらからgood solutionを見出すselection方法の設定問題といえます。

For the first I have an answer. But it isn’t simple…

Underneath these genetic fractals is a genetic code. The genetic code, exactly like DNA drives the forms and features of these genetic fractals. So all I have to do is change the genetic code randomly and the genetic fractals will take on any form. Literally: any form. If I wait long enough they will create a bunny rabbit.

The same approach will work for any other domain. You can create a genetic code that underlies (基礎［根底］にある、下に横たわる、根底にある、根拠をなす/ʌ̀ndərlái) mathematics and by modifying that code randomly you will be able to find original mathematical formulas. You could create a genetic code that underlies movie scripts and generate truly original story lines. You can do this in music, mechanical engineering or for cooking recipes.

But now for the hard part. How do you recognize a winning solution, design or work of art when it has been created? In the case of genetic fractals, I only have to look through hundreds of random images and pick the ones that look great.

For music this would be doable if I’m only looking for short riffs or gorgeous jazz chords.

But mechanical engineering or maths would be harder. How do you test a thousand random formulas for their usefulness? How do you assess hundreds of engine designs to pick one that is actually great?

Underlying this challenge of recognizing winners is the need for expertise. If we don’t understand Jazz, we won’t recognize the next Herbie Hancock when we hear it.

So, perhaps not surprisingly, we can only be creative in areas of our expertise and experience. This brings up an interesting corollary (必然的帰結、当然の結果/kɔ́rəlèri). If we create something that we are not able to appreciate because we lack experience / then chances are that someone else that has the experience would be able to recognize it for us. Therefore, we should surround ourselves with people that are smarter than ourselves / so that we get the most out of our creativity and get better in the process. This makes a case for gurus and teachers.

But there is an even more interesting extension to this line of thinking. What if we create something that isn’t just beyond our own experience and ability to recognize for its innovative value but that is also beyond the cognition of any living human? What would happen is that the “invention of the century” would remain fully unseen and be lost.

This is a bit like showing your iPhone to a cat. Franklin, or whatever your cat is called, will only see a slab of something flat and hard. Or a more relevant test would be to travel back to the 1970’s and show your iPhone to some kid there. They would be astonished at your tiny flat TV set but the concept of Internet, mobile technology and social media would remain completely incomprehensible to them.

This inability to spot innovative solutions happens more than you may think. How often do you hear about some budding entrepreneur / that has made a killing (大もうけする) out of some ‘invention’ and your first thought is: I could easily have done that myself. Yes, you could have done. You might have done. Except that you didn’t and couldn’t have recognized the opportunity when it was staring you in the face all that time.

Louis Pasteur who discovered antibiotics by chance said “chance favors only the prepared mind” (ここで言いたいことは、random thinkingの結果、創造的な素晴らしいアイデアが生まれたとしても、自分で、その素晴らしさを認識できなければ、creative outcomeには至らないということ). He was absolutely right and we probably know it. Yet, much of human endeavor functions in an anti-deBonian fashion.
”We will insist in looking for the next best idea based on something cool we just read about. ”

Forget it. It won’t work.

Get random and create.