Dennett's Darwinian theory of human creativity - Essay Example

Dennett’s Darwinian Theory of Human Creativity Spakesheare is an example of a monster/robot, that was designed by Dr. Frankenstein, and which he used as a chair- by sitting on it- when he wrote out a play, Spamlet. However, while there are many types of materials that can be used to create a robot, Dennett does not say the type of materials used to make Spakesheare (Dennett). By not telling materials that Dr. Frankenstein used to make this robot, Dennett subjects this robot, which he refers to as an intermediate creation that is used as a mere storage-and-delivery device, to suspicion and debate.

An EMI is used as an example of artificial play (Chess game) written by David Cope. It is a mere efficiency-enhancer, a composer’s aid to assist him over the barriers of composition that is confronted by any creator. It is a modern extension of the ancient search vehicles. This is because it facilitated itself into an entire composer, combining quite a number of generate-and-test procedures as its competence grew (Dennett). According to Dennett, Deep Blue is used as example of an artificial chess player developed by IBM.

Deep Blue beat Kasparov that dominated chess game for a very long period of time. This is because Deep Blue designs better chess games compared to any game designed by Garry Kasparov, the reigning World Chess Champion. Dennett uses these examples to indicate that no matter how Darwinian or anti-Darwinian may view their assertions and experiments to be true, they are not. Dennett also uses these examples to characterize a mutual suspicion between Darwinians and anti-Darwinians that deforms the empirical examination of creativity (Dennett).

This was because Darwinians suspected their opponents of longing after a skyhook, an amazing gift of masterminds whose authority lacks putrefaction into mechanical operations, regardless of how complicated and informed by initial procedures of R and D. Anti-Darwinians on the other hand, suspected their opponents of desiring after an account of creative procedures that so reduces the Finder, Author, Creator, that it disappears, at best a mere provisional locus of mindless discrepancy application.

When looking at Dennetts Darwinian Theory of human creativity, it is apparent that the above examples are related significantly with this theory. While Darwin’s theory states that “In order to make a perfect and beautiful machine, it is not requisite to know how to make it.” Dennetts Darwinian Theory of human creativity disputes this theory by stating that it is requisite to know how to make a machine in order to make a perfect and beautiful machine (Dennett). This is highly supported by the examples presented by Dennett in his careful examination to express the essential purport of the theory.

For instance, in case of a Spakesheare, it is essential to know materials used to manufacture this robotic structure even though it has no effect on the play being written. In case of EMI and Deep Blue, it is also requisite to know who made them and how they were made in order comprehend fully how they function. These examples are related and support fully Dennetts Darwinian Theory of human creativity as they are living examples. I fully agree with Dennetts Darwinian Theory of human creativity and analysis of these examples.

This is because they provide us with succinct reasons as to why it is requisite to know how to make a machine or any substance including a play so as to make a perfect and beautiful machine in contrast to Darwin’s theory that in order to make a perfect and beautiful machine, it is not requisite to know how to make it. This is because it is insensible and impossible to make a perfect and beautiful machine when you lack necessary skills needed to manufacture it. Works CitedDennett Daniel. Could there be a Darwinian Account of Human Creativity? Web. Retrieved on December 13, 2012.