"...something interesting necessarily indicates that it is or could lead to a solution", but can't anything theoretically lead to a solution, even if not immediately/intended/expected? I'm getting a bit lost in this conversation of interesting-ness, maybe we also need a discussion again on what exactly a solution (usefulness?) is? If a solution is just an answer, it always depends on a (subjective) question from someone, which is why I don't see 'interesting' as something that has to lead to a 'solution', since I could ask a completely different question or have a different understanding: "Interesting something that makes us recognize our that our understanding is incomplete." But I don't know if incomplete understanding necessarily has to precede something seeming interesting. Someone in Philosophy of Science did a critique of part of Steven Johnson's Emergence and reminded me of his notion of 'interesting'...: "Emergent complexity without adaptation is like the intricate crystals formed by a snowflake: it's a beautiful pattern, but it has no function." So, I guess for him emergent things that are most interesting lead to solutions/adapt... or serve functions (which leads right back to purpose?).