Why is it irrelevant? The whole point of this argument is whether or not human creativity is finite or infinite. I argue that human creativity is dependent on past experiences, and the collective well of past human experiences is finite, ergo the ability of human creativity to conceive of ideas is also finite, since we also possess a finite number of known ways with which to combine these thoughts.

I don't understand why you're being so defensive about this. You seem to think that because I think that the span of human creativity is not infinite, but merely so big that its vastness defies human comprehension, that somehow I think that human creativity doesn't exist. I made no such claim. I am a creative person myself; I fully respect and understand the nature of human creativity. But simply because I think there might be some finite limit to human creative thought, one that we might conceivably reach in, say, ten to the millionth power years, doesn't mean I think there is no such thing as creative thought. You seem to think that creativity must either be infinite or not exist at all.

There is some evidence for my claim. The area of the brain that creates and stores memory is also the area we draw on when imagining the future. We construct our possible futures from the memories we possess. A similar process, though more freeform, occurs with creativity.

Btw, this thread has gone way off topic and I don't want to overwhelm the discussion; do you think you could split this conversation off, mods? Thanks

__________________
I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet, so who am I to judge?

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.