Richard Bright: Can we begin by you saying something about your background?

Anna Abraham: My educational background is in Psychology and Neuroscience. My first degree was a Bachelor of Arts Honours degree in Psychology from Lady Shri Ram College at the University of Delhi in India. It has always been interesting to me that Psychology is regarded in the Indian education system as a field of the arts and humanities (at least it was so in the 1990s) whereas in the West, it is regarded as a field in the sciences. This speaks to the unique place that the discipline of Psychology occupies between academic modes of thought. I obtained an MSc in Psychology from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom, and, following that, a PhD in Neuroscience from the Ruhr University Bochum in Germany. I have worked in a wide range of disciplinarily-distinct departments in academic institutions across the world. So, I would characterize my educational and professional background as multicultural and multidisciplinary. And my choice of discipline was motivated by the fact that I have always been fascinated by people, and I have always wanted to better understand why we think and behave as we do.

RB: Have there been any particular influences to your ideas and work?

AA: I can’t say that there has been any dominant single influence that has shaped the evolution of my ideas, my work, or the approaches that I adopt. I have been impacted at different stages of my educational and professional life by a wide array of direct and indirect influences.

RB: In your book, The Creative Brain: Myths and Truths, you draw on theoretical and empirical work in cognitive psychology and neuroscience. The Standard Definition of Creativity states that creativity requires both originality and effectiveness.  The term ‘effectiveness’ raises the question – ‘according to whom?’ How would you define what creativity is and what are the biggest misconceptions people have about creativity?

AA: You have hit the nail on the head – that is exactly the type of question (and problem) we encounter when considering the standard definition of creativity. I have proposed a new definition recently which is that a creative idea is one that is novel and satisfying. Inherent to the definition is the fact that we need to distinguish between the internal frame of reference of the creating person and the external frame of reference of the recipient (i.e., the audience, judges, the field). There are several misconceptions about creativity. One that is rarely recognized is that the external frame of reference of the recipient is routinely used as a proxy for the internal frame of the reference of the creator. This is simply invalid. After all, if I have generated something that I deem to be new and satisfying, I have engaged in a creative process and hav had a creative experience regardless of whether what I have created is recognized as new and satisfying by others.  It is essential to recognize that the creation of a product is distinct from the reception of that product. They are not unrelated, but they are separable.

RB:  You also discuss the origins of the seven most common beliefs about the human brain. Can you say what these are?

AA: The seven myths/truths as I call them are –

(1) that the right hemisphere is the brain basis of creativity

(2) that madness and creativity are allied

(3) that the intake of psychedelic drugs can make people more creative

(4) that atypical brains are associated with enhanced creativity

(5) that creativity is strongly related to intelligence

(6) that dopamine is central to the creative experience

(7) that the default mode network is the brain basis of creativity.

RB: Would you say that creativity is a natural instinct?

AA: I wouldn’t call it an instinct as an instinct is defined as a fixed pattern of behavioral responses that are consistency triggered in every individual as a response to specific stimuli. That is certainly not the case for creativity. I think it is more accurate to conceive of creativity as a drive, which is an internal need that propels one to action.

RB: What do you understand by the word ‘imagination’ and how does this relate to creativity? Is there a distinction or correspondence between imagination and creativity?

AA: Imagination is very complex of course, but it can be regarded in essence as the ability to draw images or ideas to mind in the absence of perceptual input. To come up with a new idea, as one does when trying to be creative, therefore involves using one’s imagination. However, the mere use of one’s imagination need not be creative. After all, one can bring mundane thoughts or visions to mind quite easily.

RB: Is there a relationship between madness and creativity, or psychedelics and creativity?

AA: Yes, there is a relationship between madness and creativity as well as psychedelics and creativity. However, that doesn’t mean much because the relationship is not linear in the slightest in either of these cases. Both relationships are very complex, and I have devoted full chapters in the book to each of these topics in which I lay out the pattern of associations in a manner that is accessible for a lay audience.

RB: The theme of this issue is Being Human with Artificial Intelligence. Can AI be genuinely creative?

AA: I think this may be too general a question to pose. If one speaks of generalities, all humans have the fundamental capacity to be creative whereas all AI do not. But looking at specific cases leads to interesting avenues of thought. I recommend Marcus Du Sautoy ‘s examination of this type of question which he lays out in his book The Creativity Code.

I think the answer to such a question depends on two factors at a minimum: (Factor 1) which definition of creativity is being applied, and (Factor 2) which particular AI responses/products are being examined. For instance, if one follows the standard definition of creativity (Factor 1) and the AI performance being examined is AlphaGo versus Lee Sedol at the DeepMind Challenge match (Factor 2), then there is expert agreement that AlphaGo displayed moves that could be considered genuinely creative. I think this type of attention is necessary when examining such questions as blanket generalizations cloud judgment and can even be misleading.

RB: In The Creative Brain you discuss the ‘default mode network’. Can you say more about is?

AA: The default mode network refers to a set of brain regions that are engaged at rest, i.e., when the mind is not occupied by a task that requires focused attention, such as playing chess. This network has been implicated in mind wandering, self-referential thought, and spontaneous cognition.

RB: What happens in our brains when we operate in a creative mode versus an uncreative mode?

AA: The default mode network is one among the many known networks within the brain. Brain networks are functional in that the brain areas that form each network are engaged in receptive-predictive loops in service of a specific function. The visual network, for instance, has evolved to receive and represent incoming visual information.  The salience network has evolved to receive and respond to meaningful changes within one’s external or internal milieus. When we are being creative, each of these brain networks, that customarily follow receptive-predictive cycles, are coopted towards generative-explorative cycles of thought instead. The creative mode therefore necessitates a dynamic engagement of multiple brain networks.

RB: Finally, can we improve our own creativity?

AA: Yes, we can. Creativity is a practice – this is attested to by eminent creators of the world across the arts, the sciences, and other areas of human endeavor. For any reader who is interested in improving their own creativity, I recommend Twyla Tharps’s The Creative Habit. It beautifully lays out the case of why and how creativity is to be regarded as a skill that can be developed and nurtured with disciplined focus over time.

………………………………….

www.anna-abraham.com

Anna Abraham

Artificial Intelligence, Brain, Consciousness, Creativity, Mind, Neuroscience, Psychology, Science