 Today I am going to discuss on human creativity and machine creativity, whether machine creativity is possible, whether human creativity is equivalence with machine creativity. These are the problems I am going to discuss in this lectures. These sections deals with the problem of creativity and consciousness also because creativity and consciousness are two of the most puzzling feature of the human mind. Both the concepts creativity and consciousness are logically linked because a conscious human being alone has the power of creativity. Creativity is one of the least understood aspect of intelligence and is often treated as intuitive and as not suspectable to rational inquiry. However, recently there has been a reappearance of interest in this area, principally in artificial intelligence and cognitive science. These sections address a range of issues. The first section of this lectures is the question of what is creativity. In the second, my intention is to explore the features of creativity and how creativity is related to different cognitive faculties of the human mind. The second section explores dimensions of creativity especially the psychological dimensions of creativity and the historical dimensions of creativity. The psychological dimensions of creativity because creativity is also related to human psychology. The third sections critical examine the questions are their creative machines. The fourth section deals with consciousness and creativity. The fifth section will be concerned about whether this consciousness and machine creativity is derivative or not. The question first is what is creativity? Creativity is one of the most important aspect of intelligence and is the most important features of the human mind. It is creativity in the very specific sense of the term used here which distinguishes human from machines. Now, the question is under what conditions can we say that a human act is creative? We can identify two aspects in any act. One is the product of the act and the other is the process. By product we mean that which is produced by the act. The process stands for the way the product is produced. The process being psychological is something subjectivity. Therefore, in order to judge whether an act is creative, it is not possible to depend only upon the features of the psychological process involved. An act can be judged to be creative on the basis of some of the objective features that the product processes such as artistic creations, poetic compositions and etcetera. Therefore, the question is what is creativity comes down to what are the characteristic features of a creative product in terms of which the act that produced is to be creative. Features of creativity now we have to see some of the human act features of creativity. One of the most important features of creativity is novelty. By the term novelty we mean that the product did not come into existence before the act in questions performed. The novelty of the creativity of the product lies in the fact that it is different from other products already existing in the same domain. We come to know this only after the object is produced nor prior knowledge of the antecedent events and processes or the circumcision that led to production of object can help us to know in advance what features the product will have. It has been defined by many philosophers and they say that persons creativity to produce new or original idea inside inventions or artistic product which are accepted by expert as being of scientific, aesthetic, social or technical value. Therefore, the creativity is one of the most important things in the human society because if they are aesthetic, social, technical and scientific values if it has no values it is not a creativity. In a similar manner Borden points out that if we take seriously dictionary definition of the creative to get something from out of nothing and to get something out of something and it is hardly surprised that the some people have explained it in terms of divine inspirations that is creativity out of nothing and many other in terms of some romantic intuitions or insights. What Borden is trying to show is that if the creation is out of nothing then it is God's creation because God alone can create something out of nothing, but we are concerned with the human creativity as this is because human creativity arises out of intuition or out of the combination of old ideas. Once the product has come into existence we may enumerate or list those features it possesses, but these features cannot be assumed under a law or a rules. That is statement describing the features of the object cannot be deduced from the rules or laws along with certain uncertain circumstances. Thus creativity is according to Borden the creativity is a puzzle, a paradox, some as a mystery. In mentors, scientist and artist rarely know how their original ideas arise. They mention intuitions, but cannot say how it works. Most psychologist cannot tell us much about it and if Borden assumption is there will never be scientific theory of creativity for how could science possibly experience fundamental novelties as if all these were not daunting enough the apparent unpredictability of creativity seems to outlaw any systematic explanation whether scientific or historical. Thus Borden's definition of creativity begins out the features such as nobility, uniqueness and originality which are essential to any creative act. If a creative product has no value, no originality and no uniqueness then it is not new in its creation because there is nothing new in its creation. Whether a creation is out of something or out of nothing these minimum features are essential to any creative act now the question is why should we be creative. We are creative because we have to solve our day to day problem that is to say we are creative in most of day to day activities of problem solving hence creativity is manifested in problem solving. Now we have to see that whether creativity as problem solving we may understand creativity as problem solving thus a novel combination of ideas is said to be creative if it constitutes a solution to a problem. Problem solving is associated with many human activities however many questions arises such as are all problems well defined do we always know what the problem is our goals always clearly established in many cases the answer is no. So, problem solving is not a mechanical affair it is a creative act thus creative problem solving is different from the routine or mechanical one. According to Dodd and White problem solving a frequent human activity of course when a goal cannot be achieved directly and a plan must be devised which will permit a goal attainment. On the other hand may I define it as problem solving is a cognitive process that is directed towards solving problems. Here the definitions of problem solving consist of three components firstly problem solving is cognitive act that occurs internally in the mind secondly problem solving is a process having a definite directions and goal that is why when a human being solves problems he or she does a creative insightful and the intuitive act. Moreover thirdly when human being solve problem they identify the mental operations the representations and strengths that they use when they solve problems. Problem solving consist of search in a problem space which has initial state a goal state and set of operations that can be applied you know to reach the goal but everyone needs flexible critical and creative thinking skills to cope with these problems and find solutions that can improve the physical and social environment. For creative problem solving intelligence is necessary and intelligent mind is a good thinker besides a sense of humor helps in creative thinking because it relives stress, intentions and monotony. It switches the mind into unexpected task you know to solve problems human beings should be creative intelligent and conscious a conscious human being can solve the problem easily though creativity is more likely to be observed among those who are more integrally capable. Such capability is not a guarantee of creativity the ability assisted by IQ test is not a slowly responsible for creative problem solving. Now the question is what abilities distinguish creative from routine problem solving before attempting to identify the abilities responsible for creative problem solving we must examine a model of intellectual functioning and distribution between forms of thought and the abilities underlying in those forms and there are different model different scientist they have said but in the case of human abilities you will generally find there are two kinds of thinking one is divergent thinking and the second one is convergent thinking divergent and convergent productions operations conducted on memory the convergent thinking might say what I do to solve this problem the divergent thinker might say what are the ways of looking at this problem therefore this convergent and divergent thinking plays vital role in the case of human mind and this kind of thinking is always we have been a practicing and we have been using in our day to day affairs. Now we have to see the dimensions of creativity there are various aspects or dimensions of creativity the dimensions are psychological and historical or social a product or criteria for example may be new in a psychological sense if the product is new to the creative agent a product has special significance if the object strikes as new to the concedes community of experts a product is new from an objective point of view if the product did not exist in the domain before its production it was not possible to bring the product into existence by following the available rules and practices prevails in the domain what is new objectively or socially more socially must be new psychologically as well from the point of view of the agent whose actions brought the product into existence but the converse is not true what is psychological new may not be socially or historically because the object considered as new by the agent may already be present in the domain therefore we have two sense of creativity psychological and the social or historically the psychological sense is not divorced from the social sense of creativity because as explained above what is social is also psychological by creativity in the social sense we mean primarily the evaluation of the product as creative by a community of experts as already noted such evaluation are subjective to social cultural factors and thus depends on many accidental factors since we cannot have a theory that deals with accidental factors responsive for the productions and positive evaluation of the creative product it is not possible to have a systematic explanation of creativity in the social sense what we can think of psychological factors and processes involved in creativity and underlying the historical aspect of creativity. First of all we have to see the psychological dimensions of creativity as we have discussed above there are two sense of creativity firstly psychological and historical what and characterizes them as p creativity and h creativity respectively. She writes I quote a valuable idea is p creative if the person in whose mind it arises could not have had it before it does not matter how many times the other people have already had the same idea by contrast a valuable idea is h creative if it is p creativity and no one else in all human history has ever had it before on quote according to this definition it is not possible to have a theory that explains all and only h creativity or historical creativity what in principles a psychological explanation of p creativity ideas is possible. Now examine psychological sense of creativity with the framework of cognitive science cognitive science is a systematic study of human cognitive capacities like thinking, perceptions, memory and many other cognitive acts. The processes responsible for the existence of these capacities are said to be internal to the system in questions the impacts of the social, cultural and physical environment on this process are not denied but it is assumed that the internal processes mediate such impacts therefore cognitive science concentrates on a systematic study of the internal processes involved the internal processes themselves are said to be sort of computations and computation is understood as rule govern symbol manipulations and these things we have already explained what is symbol govern manipulations accordingly if we are able to identify the symbols systems and the rules that govern the transpiration of the symbols we may be in a position to account for the internal processes involved in cognitions. In the psychological sense creative processes may be considered as internal cognitive processes that are very sophisticated in nature and may be understood as rule govern the symbol manipulations. So, the key to cognitive modeling of creativity consist in identifying the symbol system involved and the rules that governs them since we are concerned with creativity in the psychological sense we shall understand symbols as a system of ideas. Our main attempt would be to understand how new ideas arise in the mind of the creative agent one way of understanding it would be to conceive of new ideas as a result of the permeation and combinations of old ideas though this process of permutations and combinations entirely unexpected new and heterononic sense combination of ideas are emerges. Therefore, creativity is the source that is one of the important aspects of the human mind. However, this permutations and combinations of ideas are not random processes rather they are rule govern processes. All these combinations of ideas must result in the generation of new ideas which we are not already there they only exist and these only can be called as the creative idea all the novel ideas or thoughts by themselves would not mean that they are creative. We would consider the new combination of ideas to be somehow improbable and yet relevant what in suggest that there must be novelty in the creative ideas in the sense that the combinations did not occur before. A creative idea for her is one that did not and could not have occurred before such idea according to Borden are radically novel whereas ideas that did not but could have occurred before are merely novelies in a relative sense. In Borden's words Borden says that many creative ideas are surprising in a deeper way they concern novel ideas that not only did not happens but that in a sense of clarified things and that could not happened before. The key understanding radical novelties like in getting to know the meaning of could not in this context but Borden says that before we considering the just what is this could not means we must distinguishes two sense of creativity one is psychological creativity she calls it as peak creativity and other is historical creativity and Borden calls it h creativity. A valuable idea is peak creativity of the person in whose mind it arises could not have had it before it does not matter how many times other people have had already the same idea. By contrast a valuable idea is h creativity if it is peak creativity and no one else in all humanity had it be before. Borden clarifies with the help of some example suppose a person comes with an entirely new English sentence yes suppose which has not been he thought uttered by anyone in the history of mankind. This sentence could have occurred before to a person who has enterized the grammar of English language and is familiar with its vocabulary that is the same sentence could have been produced by the same set of generative rules that produced other English sentences. In the same way a new idea that could have been produced by the same set of generative rules that produce other familiar ideas is merely a first time novel ideas on the other hand if you see a radical novel idea or a creative idea is one that could not have been produced by the same system of generative rules that produced other familiar ideas. The above statement shows that there are two kinds of creative thinking one is divergent and convergent thinking which we have already explained. The productions generally original ideas suggested that a specific and a new generative system is available to the creative thinker. The generative system is not the production of random thinking but it is a response to certain constraints on the kind of ideas that could be produced by the application of the generative systems available to the creative agent before he came off with new generative rules. This shows that creativity is possible because of the constraints improves by the availability of a generative system of ideas. The existence of constraints demand that the creative agent comes off with specific systems of generative rules and permit a radical novel and combination of ideas. This shows that the convergent creative thinking is a supplement to the divergent creative thinking because in the case of divergent creative thinking it opens many aspect to have a creative ideas. Therefore, the divergent thinking opposed to the convergent thinking and divergent thinking is involved to usual association of the ideas changing perspective and novel approaches to problems in constant to problems in constant to convergent thinking which involves linear logical step. Now, we have to see historical dimensions of creative or historical creative. As we have already seen, Borden has made a distinction between peak creativity and h creativity. Historical dimensions of creativity is opposed to psychological creativity because historical creativity is new to the human history. As Borden says that a valuable idea is h creativity if it is peak creativity no more no one else in all human history have has had it with before. That is h creativity is typically associated with creativity in relation to the entire history of mankind. This type of creativity is not merely psychological but also social in character. Again, Borden says that there cannot be no systematic explanation of historical creativity no theory that explains all and only historical creativity ideas. What Borden is trying to show that pre-creativity or psychological creativity depends on historical creativity because by definitions all h creativity is peak creative ideas but not all peak creative ideas are h creative. The psychological creativity or peak creativity is concerned with the individual psychology of the person concerned whereas, historical creativity is a matter of social evaluation and collective judgment. Following this Braneshan writes such value judgments are to some extent cultural relative. Since what is value by one person or social group may or may not be valued, praised, preserved, promoted by another. As you have seen in the beginning of this sections, historical creativity is opposed to psychological creativity. In this sense any historical creativity is more relative than any merely peak creativity ideas. In the strict sense we may not regard peak creativity as creative at all. Any case peak creativity cannot be on par with h creative because the lateral alone guarantees nobility in all the creative actions. Therefore, this is about the historical creativity. Therefore, there is a strong distinction between peak creativity and historical creativity even with the historical creativity is peak creativity because there is a particular psychology is concerned in that creativity. Now, you have to come to see the another sections of this section are their creative machines. This section is concerned with two ideas. The first is about the concept of humans as machines and concerned cognitive science. The second is about the possibility of machines being intelligent and it is concerned in artificial intelligence. Cognitive science tries to provide computational model of mind that is computational simulation of human cognitive processes. If creativity is not a computational process, it might still be possible to simulate it computationally just as it is possible to simulate hurricanes or digestive process without the simulation itself being digestive process respectively. It might be possible to have machines models of human creativity processes even if machines themselves cannot be creative. The main point is that simulation is not duplications. Nevertheless, if machines cannot be creative the divine force behind cognitive science will be lost. Cognitive science is driven by the field that it is cognitive processes that matter that these can be performed by silicon computer as well as by carbon brands. It is not clear whether cognitive science could survive the loss of its central metaphor of the mind as a computational device which we have seen already. Now, the question is can a machine be creative when a machine is creating something the credit is not given to the analytical engine or computer, but to the engineer. This is because the engineer already predetermines the result and here the conscious being is there and the engineer is a conscious being but in the case of engine is an automata. This kind of a huge and gap as well as separate kind of explanations are there. Borden says that the analytical engine has no pretensions whatever to originates anything I can do only whatever we know how to order to perform. For example, if a program manages to play a modern judge then the musical structure in that program must be capable of producing those musical expressions it does not follow that the machine playing much is creative. The human musician create new forms of music which machine cannot. The machine providing music according to design to the job of mechanical. Borden addresses the following questions regarding whether machines such as computers are creative. These questions are can computers help us to understand human creativity? Could computers do things which at least appear to be creative? Could computers appear to recognize creativity? Can computers really be creative? According to Borden the first question focuses on the creativity of human being. The next two questions are psychological the four question is a philosophical. Here Borden is concerned with the first questions to which her answer is yes because computational concepts and theories can help us to specify the conceptual structure and processes in people's mind. In response to the above four questions she says that computers can do things that appear to be creative. But whether we regard them as actual creative will depend on whether we are prepared to allow them a moral or intellectual respect comparable with the respect we feel for all human beings. It is debatable whether machine can be ascribed the status of moral being at all. Borden's response remains negative. While Borden is concerned more with the way in which computers can help us to understand human creativity. But in the case of Terry Dartnall is concerned with the fourth questions more straightforwardly. Dartnall writes if machines cannot be creative then I doubt there is any significant sense in which they can be intelligent for they will never have minds of their own. I do mean this in the weak sense that they will always slavishly do what we tell them. But in the strong sense that they will never be able to generate their own ideas and I take it as a axiomatic that if they cannot generate their own ideas they cannot be intelligent. Therefore creativity is related to skills and abilities and also to ideas which are novel and original. The ability to generate ideas and beliefs effectively actually is the core of creativity. The most common reason put forward to support the claim that computers cannot originate anything is that they merely follow instructions. The first argument is like this. If x is merely following instructions x is not being creative. Computers only follows instruction therefore computers are not being creative. In this argument the first premise seems to be false for we sometimes instruct people to be creative. For example teacher advises the student to be creative and not mechanical. Therefore it is possible to be creative and still be following instructions. But the fact is that computers are not like the students in this example. Computers merely follows instruction and cannot make a move on their own. Everything that a computer does is something that it was told to do. Hence it cannot be said to be creative. The argument can be revised as follows. If everything that x does is something that it was told to do then x is not creative. Everything that a computer does is something that it was told to do. Therefore computers are not creative. In this argument the second premise is false. If we do not instruct the computer in every action it performs if this premise were true then we are required to give instructions at every step. But this may not be the case always. What that means is that the machines do not literally follow the instructions. But that the computer is built and designed to respond in a predictable way to its instructions. So the argument can be further reformulated as follows. If x is designed to respond in predictable way to its instructions then x is not creative. Computers are designed to respond in a predictable way to their instructions. Therefore computers are not creative. Still this is not a strong argument in view of the fact that creative of computer cannot be denied just because they should respond to the instruction of the designer. In these connections one may appeal to Borden's distinction between peak creativity and h creativity. Something is peak creative if it is fundamental novel for the individual. And it is h creativity if it is fundamental novel with respect to the whole of human history. The computer can be claimed to be peak creativity if they can create something novel because they are not h creativity at all. But yet Dartnell argues that there is no obvious reason why they cannot have minds of their own. The final argument that creativity is not predictable is little more than a trick of the light. Dartnell's argument cannot prove that computer of creativity like human beings. Since machine creativity is a secondary phenomena in comparison to human creativity. The human creativity is a fundamental fact of the intelligence. The peak creativity of the human being is supported and strengthened by h creativity. Therefore h creativity plays vital role in the case of human mind. In the next lectures we will see how the human creativity and human mind plays vital role than the machine creativity and mechanical mind. Thank you.