About

Creativity often requires putting ideas together in new ways. In philosophy, this might mean solving a problem in your area by adapting arguments or views that were developed in a different area to solve a different problem. Cognitively, this means that people who unconsciously pair more 'long-distance' ideas will tend to be more creative (Mednick 1962).

The Philosophy Paper Topic Machine started as a thought experiment. Suppose we replace this unconscious psychological process with a machine that randomly pairs views, arguments, and problems pulled from the philosophical literature. A philosopher using the Paper Topic Machine would still have to do the heavy lifting to trace how the randomly paired topics fit together, and write up the paper. Well, thanks to the 'random entry' button on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy website, it is easy to make a rough mock-up of such a machine. So I did.

Many philosophers argue that we should not give people credit (or blame) for actions that are produced by unconscious processes, like the processes responsible for the initial pairing of ideas in normal 'combinatorial' creativity (Boden 2004). The question, then, is whether those same philosophers would give someone less credit for creativity if they used the machine. Suppose two philosophers wrote the same exact collection of papers; Liberty used the machine to get all of his ideas, but Libertad never used the machine to get hers. Is Libertad more creative than Liberty? I find myself inclined to say she is, and I suspect most philosophers would as well. If they do, then this is a counterexample to the claim that unconscious, blind processes cannot produce responsible action.

We can hit closer to home if we put the question another way: If you came up with a paper topic (or dissertation topic, or book topic) using the Paper Topic Machine, would you be willing to admit it? I am happy to put this to the test. All are free to use the Paper Topic Machine as they wish, with no requirement that they acknowledge it. If you do come up with a paper topic using it, please use the form below to comment. You may do so anonymously if you wish. But if you don't think the use of the machine makes a difference, prove it: give your name and the paper name, and thank the Philosophy Paper Topic Machine in the acknowledgements of your paper.

Perhaps, someday, there will be a large enough sample to test empirically: what percentage of philosophers are willing to admit that the machine gave them their idea, and what percentage are not? That will take some real effort on your part though; let's put the machine to use! Even if we never get to that point, hopefully it inspires some thinking about creativity, credit, and the unconscious. And hopefully we can have a bit of fun with it.

The paper version is forthcoming in Analysis. Here is a PDF of the final draft.

- Mike Dacey, Bates College