Abstract

The main goal of this essay is to demonstrate the creativity of computational systems (both living and non-living) through a philosophical interpretation of Alan Turing's halting theorem. The first part consists of a brief genealogy of studies focused on the analogy between humans and machines, with a specific focus on the issue of creativity. It aims to show how, since the publication of Turing's 1950 paper Computing Machinery and Intelligence, a subjectivist approach has become dominant in these studies—namely, the tendency to shift the locus of inquiry into machine intelligence and creativity from the machines themselves to their observers, inferring the potential of the former from the latter’s reactions of surprise. We will demonstrate how this approach has, over time, downplayed the question of whether machines are genuinely creative (as explored by Boden) and has instead anchored research on the premise that creativity lies in the eyes of the beholder (as proposed by Ritchie. As an alternative to this approach, the second part will attempt to revive an objectivist perspective, showing how it is possible—once again drawing on Turing—to argue for the real creativity of machines. However, this will be done by leveraging the important philosophical implications of the logical-mathematical results Turing achieved in his 1936 paper on computable numbers. In the conclusion, the essay will propose identifying the equivalent of real machine creativity in the human ability to take one thing for another—a concept described by Cornelius Castoriadis as a quid pro quo intrinsic to language understood as a code. This ability enables individuals to consistently align experiential data with their own rules.