I also just realized: this is a case of proof by example. It's a logical fallacy. You're claiming that because we have one example of sentient creative beings, therefore we can extrapolate that all sentient creative beings will possess properties similar or identical to our own. However, you fail to realize, that because indeed we presently only have a single example of human-like intelligence, we cannot with any certainty ascribe any properties to other, speculated human-like intelligences; at least not by going so far as to claim 'inevitabilities'. I suspect your response will be: "It's plausible/probable." Really? By what measure have you deemed it to be particularly probable or plausible? Or is it, as I suspect, a totally arbitrary application of probability? You cannot simply assert that something is probable, let alone 'inevitable', without extremely robust evidence. In any case, it is an intriguing speculation.
A wide multiple perspective view of what we know about the universe and evolution, and no fear of where that may lead reveals some startling probabilities. The only limits are being stuck in reductionist and empirical thought, and potential limits of nature.