Elon Musk thinks you don’t exist. But it’s nothing personal: he thinks he doesn’t exist either. At least, not in the normal sense of existing. Instead he thinks that, we are just immaterial software constructs running on a gigantic alien computer simulation. Musk has stated that the odds are billions to one that we are actually living in “base reality”, ie the physical universe. At the end of last year, he responded to a tweet about the anniversary of the crude tennis video game Pong (1972) by writing: “49 years later, games are photo-realistic 3D worlds. What does that trend continuing imply about our reality?”
This idea is surprisingly popular among philosophers and even some scientists. Nick Bostrom's simulation argument, presented in his 2003 paper titled "Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?", explores the implications of advanced technology and the nature of reality. He posits that if humanity continues to advance technologically, particularly in computing power and virtual reality, it could be possible for future civilizations to create highly realistic simulations of their ancestors that are indistinguishable from reality.
Bostrom discusses the concept of "ancestor simulations," where advanced civilizations might run these simulations out of curiosity or for research purposes. He argues that such simulations could include a vast number of simulated beings, potentially possessing consciousness.
His argument includes a trilemma, suggesting that one of the following must be true: either almost all civilizations at our level of technological development go extinct before becoming technologically mature, almost all technologically mature civilizations lose interest in creating ancestor simulations, or we are almost certainly living in a simulation. Bostrom asserts that if the first two points are false, then it is probable that we are indeed living in a simulation.
Additionally, the paper delves into questions about consciousness, the nature of reality, and the significance of being "real." If a simulation is complex enough, the beings within it may experience consciousness and a sense of reality, even if they aren't in the "base" reality. Bostrom's paper has sparked significant discussion in both academic philosophy and popular culture, leading to debates about the ethical implications of simulations and the nature of existence itself, as well as our understanding of consciousness in relation to technology.
My take on such things is the following, If science cannot prove or disprove it, that means there is such probability and it is a matter of belief or a probable theory. However, the kind of simulation I would like to talk about is different. The simulation I would like you to focus on is the kind of simulation is created to limit our mental capabilities as species and box-in our thinking patterns.
Before I move, on I would like you to watch a video. This video is actually the inspiration for this article, without it, there is no story. Right before you watch it, please keep an open mind. Think of the words, not the artist. Forget about his bipolarity, who he was married to, in which cities he performed & how hot his current wife is.
Succumbing to boxed-in thought patterns leads to the trap of a restrictive thinking paradigm that I mentioned earlier.
I believe in keeping an open mind toward all forms of art; it should be limitless. An artist needs to be viewed separately from their personal beliefs. I think we should approach their work without prejudice.
We as a society and quite often as species dwell on the “societal projection” of how a child should “act”. We teach to sit straight, before empathy. We enforce fear, before rationale. We limit a child’s creative behavior & curiosity, with building walls he is not supposed to look over. We flip the “parent” card way too soon in our conversations with them, as in, “because I told you so”. We impose discipline and boxed thinking, before understanding why the child is doing whatever he or she is doing. Maybe, just maybe the child is imitating your behavior…? Luckily this article is not about parenting, I only have 8 years of experience in parenting & still have a lot to learn.
The examples I have brought out in the previous paragraph are the “prequel” factors which institute “the simulation” & created “boxed thinking”. Evidently, those behaviors lead to limiting the child’s cognitive abilities.
Now let’s see, what does cognitive development mean. “Cognitive development means how children think, explore and figure things out. It is the development of knowledge, skills, problem solving and dispositions, which help children to think about and understand the world around them.”
Have you ever experienced or observed the following?
You’re trying to explain something to a child, and even though it seems so obvious to you, the child just doesn’t seem to understand. This does not mean that the child is naughty, stupid or their lack of understanding is your fault. Their cognitive development limits their ability to understand certain concepts.
The more I write, the more this article starts to become a parenting guide. I do not have a problem with children, or your parenting abilities. I have a problem with lack of creative thinking in adults today, paradoxically that inability starts from childhood. In order to close the chapter on parenting;
Let me place a link here for the parents. The link is about Piaget’s Stages: 4 Stages of Cognitive Development & Theory. It will depict in detail the stages of cognitive development of a child starting from month 1 and leading all the way up to adolescence.
In simplest terms the article within the link will help you better align your parenting style to your child’s development stage. That is of course, if you have a child.
You are probably wondering, if this story is not about parenting then, what is it about?
It is about creativity and what exactly the statement of “thinking outside the box” means. The reason why the story started with Kanye is because, I consider him as one of the most artistically creative people of our time. His influence on music & fashion industry is impeccable.
There are a lot of factors which foster creativity. Starting from your upbringing, the house you live in, your exposure to nature, stage of your society on spiral dynamics chart and etc. A few of these topics were covered in an episode of “Sohbetgah” podcast. During which hosts Tural & Ali touched on variety of factors affecting creativity with Sevda Aliyeva.
During the episode Ali mentioned his distaste or aversion towards contemporary art of engineers. Specifically the ones who use light installations. He was elaborating on how light installations are not sophisticated enough in comparison to statues & ceilings of renaissance era we can see in Uffizi, Florence. Sevda clearly disagreed with that statement, and she was absolutely right. It is a matter of perception. Creativity can be applied anywhere. Including engineering and any other craft.
Although I agree that the classics at the Louvre, Vatican city or Ufizzi gallery are historic craftsmanships. Masterpieces like Venus de Milo, Coronation of Napoleion, Sistine Chapel, School of Athens, Primavera, The birth of Venus and Mona Lisa are all timeless masterpieces, they can not be compared to modern art installations at Guggenheim or your local modern art museums.
I do agree with lack of certain sophistication that most modern art lacks in comparison to those previously mentioned masterpieces. However, I would like you to focus on the word “creativity”. It has nothing to do with any given era or field of application. Creativity and out of the box thinking can be observed in any field. It is not a secluded dogma which is exclusive only to artists.
So, ladies and gents - I have been waiting a long time for this opportunity. I would like to tell you all about one of my favorite books. The book is authored by Rick Rubin, it is called “The creative act: a way of being”.
Rick Rubin is a renowned music producer known for his work in various genres, including hip-hop, rock, and country. He co-founded Def Jam Recordings and has produced albums for iconic artists such as the Beastie Boys, Run-D.M.C., Johnny Cash, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. His distinctive approach combines a minimalist aesthetic with an intense focus on the artist's vision, often encouraging creativity and authenticity.
In his book, "The Creative Act: A Way of Being," which was released in 2023, Rubin explores the nature of creativity and the processes that fuel artistic expression. The book combines insights drawn from his extensive experience in the music industry with philosophical reflections on art and creativity. Rubin emphasizes the importance of intuition, vulnerability, and openness in the creative process. His writing aims to inspire readers to tap into their own creative potential, encouraging them to see creativity as a way of being rather than merely a professional pursuit. Furthermore, he encourages readers to apply creativity to any field of their choice.
Throughout the book, he shares anecdotes and lessons gleaned from his collaborations with various artists, highlighting the personal and emotional aspects of creativity. Rubin's contemplative perspective invites readers to reflect on their relationship with creativity, making it a guide for both artists and anyone interested in the creative process, regardless of their field. The book reflects his belief that creativity is an essential part of life that can lead to personal transformation and fulfillment.
The book I gave a humble review to, is a masterpiece. On top of it, it is an extension of an opinion me and Sevda share. The theory that creativity can be applied anywhere suggests that creative thinking is not confined to traditional artistic fields but can enhance problem-solving and innovation across various disciplines and contexts. This concept posits that the principles of creativity—such as imagination, originality, and the ability to combine ideas in novel ways—can be beneficial in multiple areas, including science, business, education, technology, and everyday life.
Here is what my favorite engineer Elon, has said about his colleagues. “Possibly the most common error of a smart engineer is to optimize a thing that should not exist,” Creative people think beyond of whats possible or not, they tackle the boundaries of the “boxed thinking”.
Boxed thinking creates long lasting patterns in societies, of how one should think, talk & behave. I am not diminishing certain rational rules, which have to be there! No, no! However, there are things that should not exist at all. As Elon says about engineering parts “the best part is no part. The best process is no process. It weighs nothing, costs nothing, can't go wrong. So, as obvious as that sounds, the best part is no part.”
Creative people do things rest of us usually avoid. “Creativity is the language we use to communicate the urgency of our dreams for a better future.” — Audre Lorde
Creativity can be applied in any field! Let me give you a historic example that I admire. The Trojan horse! The concept is attributed to the Greek hero Odysseus, who was known for his cleverness and strategic thinking. The Greeks built a large wooden horse and hid a select group of their best soldiers inside it. In the legendary city of Troy around 1184 B.C., the Greeks employed a masterful military deception with the Trojan Horse. Whether rooted in historical fact or poetic imagination, the ingenious ploy marked a pivotal moment, illustrating the power of cunning and covert maneuvers in warfare. Speaking of Odysseus, Christopher Nolan is working on a movie about him..Can’t wait!
What makes highly creative people different from the rest of us?
Highly creative people often exhibit certain traits and characteristics that set them apart from others. These differences can manifest in various ways: Divergent thinking, curiosity and open-mindedness, ambiguity toleration, strong imagination, passion, resilience, interdisciplinary thinking and emotional awareness.
Overall, the combination of these traits allows highly creative individuals to process information, approach challenges, and generate ideas in ways that differ significantly from more conventional thinkers. These differences contribute to their unique contributions in various fields, from the arts, sciences, warfare, to business and technology.
In the 1960s, psychologist and creativity researcher Frank X. Barron set about finding out. Barron conducted a series of experiments on some of his generation’s most renowned thinkers in an attempt to isolate the unique spark of creative genius.
In a historic study, Barron invited a group of high-profile creators—including writers Truman Capote, William Carlos Williams, and Frank O’Connor, along with leading architects, scientists, entrepreneurs, and mathematicians—to spend several days living in a former frat house on the University of California at Berkeley campus. The participants spent time getting to know one another, being observed by researchers, and completing evaluations of their lives, work, and personalities, including tests that aimed to look for signs of mental illness and indicators of creative thinking.
Barron found that, contrary to conventional thought at the time, intelligence had only a modest role in creative thinking. IQ alone could not explain the creative spark.
Instead, the study showed that creativity is informed by a whole host of intellectual, emotional, motivational and moral characteristics. The common traits that people across all creative fields seemed to have in common were an openness to one’s inner life; a preference for complexity and ambiguity; an unusually high tolerance for disorder and disarray; the ability to extract order from chaos; independence; unconventionality; and a willingness to take risks.
Describing this list of traits, Barron wrote that the creative genius was “both more primitive and more cultured, more destructive and more constructive, occasionally crazier and yet adamantly saner, than the average person.”
This new way of thinking about creative genius gave rise to some fascinating contradictions. In a subsequent study of creative writers, Barron and Donald MacKinnon found that the average writer was in the top 15% of the general population on all measures of psychopathology. But strangely enough, they also found that creative writers scored extremely high on all measures of psychological health.
Why? Well, it seemed that creative people were more introspective. This led to increased self-awareness, including a greater familiarity with the darker and more uncomfortable parts of themselves. It may be because they engage with the full spectrum of life—both the dark and the light—that writers score high on some of the characteristics that our society tends to associate with mental illness. Conversely, this same propensity can lead them to become more grounded and self-aware. In openly and boldly confronting themselves and the world, creative-minded people seemed to find an unusual synthesis between healthy and “pathological” behaviors.
Such contradictions may be precisely what gives some people an intense inner drive to create. As psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi said after more than 30 years of observing creative people: “If I had to express in one word what makes their personalities different from others, it’s complexity. They show tendencies of thought and action that in most people are segregated. They contain contradictory extremes; instead of being an ‘individual,’ each of them is a ‘multitude.’”
The creative brain is particularly good at flexibly activating and deactivating these brain networks, which in most people are at odds with each other. In doing so, they are able to juggle seemingly contradictory modes of thought—cognitive and emotional, deliberate and spontaneous. This allows them to draw on a wide range of strengths, characteristics and thinking styles in their work.
Is there a thin line between creative genius & insanity? Yes, “Totally”! as my friend always replies when he agrees with you 100%.
Here is an example:
“On the night of December 23, 1888, in Arles, France, Vincent van Gogh, enraged that fellow painter and possibly romantic partner Paul Gauguin was about to leave him, took a razor and sliced off his left ear—not just a part but all of it. With severed lobe in hand, van Gogh then walked to a nearby brothel and presented the trophy to a young prostitute, Gabrielle Berlatier. Authorities quickly apprehended the self-assailant and placed him in a mental hospital. The story of van Gogh mutilating his ear is well known, immortalized in the artist’s famous "Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear and Pipe" (1889).
We associate van Gogh with mental instability and wild behavior, and we project those qualities onto his art. Did van Gogh really paint his hallucinations? Similarly, did the eccentric and half-crazy Beethoven really compose sounds he couldn’t hear?”
To stay on the “safe” side of the line, van Gogh painted. “Work is the only remedy,” he wrote in 1883. “If that does not help, one breaks down.” Toggling between the safe harbor of productive genius and disabling insanity, van Gogh continued to paint—until he couldn’t. On the morning of July 27, 1890, he wandered off into a field near the Oise River and shot himself with a revolver.
The words of Robin Williams, again, may provide a modern context for van Gogh and many “unbalanced” artists. “You are going to come to the edge and look over, and sometimes you are going to step over the edge, and then you are going to come back, hopefully.”
But the question remains: Does madness inform visionary art, or does it run collateral with and independent of it?
Fostering or embodying creativity since childhood is a solid start! Finding the toggle of balance or the harmony is the key. Nonetheless, the risk of crossing that thin line is the problem of that X% of general population aka creative geniuses. For us simpletons, the aim is - fostering & developing creativity. Not only that, but also diminishing the existence of that boxed thinking, which keeps taking that essence of life away from us.
In our modern day, there are a lot of behavioral examples that make me & you cringe with disgust or aversion. I do not want to give examples, because it will open the door for a debate with people I do not enjoy having a debate with. For the sole reason of - “assumptional” way of thinking. Those people who jump to conclusions without asking any questions have no seat around my table. They are the prime examples of boxed thinkers.
Creative thinker’s brain is wired differently.
Creative thinker always asks multiple “why” questions. The reason for that happening is because, their brain is wired differently. Before building a mental concept of an understanding, they have to understand the main pillars of it.
Scientists studying brain scans of people who were asked to come up with inventive uses for everyday objects found a specific pattern of connectivity that correlated with the most creative responses. Researchers were then able to use that pattern to predict how creative other people's responses would be based on their connections in this network. The study is described in a January 15 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"What this shows is that the creative brain is wired differently," said Roger Beaty, a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Psychology and the first author of the study. "People who are more creative can simultaneously engage brain networks that don't typically work together. We also used predictive modeling to show we could predict, with some degree of accuracy, how creative people's ideas were (based on brain scans) that had already been published." Beaty and colleagues reanalyzed brain data from previous studies and found that, by simply measuring the strength of connections in these peoples' brain networks, they could estimate how original their ideas would be.
While the data showed that regions across the brain were involved in creative thought, Beaty said the evidence pointed to three subnetworks -- the default mode network, the salience network and the executive control network -- that appear to play key roles in creative thought.
The default mode network, he said, is involved in memory and mental simulation, so the theory is that it plays an important role in processes like mind-wandering, imagination, and spontaneous thinking.
"In terms of creativity, we think that's important for brainstorming," Beaty said. "But you're not always going to stumble onto the most creative idea that way, because you might be drawn to something unoriginal from memory, so that's when these other networks come online."
The salience network, he said, detects important information, both in the environment and internally. When it comes to creativity, researchers believe it may be responsible for sorting through the ideas that emerge from the default mode network.
Lastly, Beaty said, the executive control network works to help people keep their focus on useful ideas while discarding those that aren't working.
It's also not clear that creativity can't be modified with some kind of training. "It's not something where you have it or you don't," he added. "Creativity is complex, and we're only scratching the surface here, so there's much more work that's needed."
A nice side benefit of the research is that it undercuts the common myth that creativity is influenced by being either “left brained” or “right brained.” Instead, it seems clear (from this and previous research) that creativity involves multiple brain areas across both hemispheres. I think we are all creative.
Everyone is a creator.
“The Creative act: a way of being’s” first paragraph starts out perfectly, moreover it incapsulated my idea of everyone being an artist, better than I imagined. Below you can read the first chapter called “Everyone is a creator”.
“Those who do not engage in the traditional arts might be wary of calling themselves artists. They might perceive creativity as something extraordinary or beyond their capabilities. A calling for the special few who are born with these gifts.
Fortunately, this is not the case.
Creativity is not a rare ability. It is not difficult to access.
Creativity is a fundamental aspect of being human. It's our birthright. And it's for all of us.
Creativity doesn't exclusively relate to making art. We all engage in this act on a daily basis.
To create is to bring something into existence that wasn't there before. It could be a conversation, the solution to a problem, a note to a friend, the rearrangement of furniture in a room, a new route home to avoid a traffic jam.
What you make doesn't have to be witnessed, recorded, sold, or encased in glass for it to be a work of art. Through the ordinary state of being, we're already creators in the most profound way, creating our experience of reality and composing the world we perceive.
In each moment, we are immersed in a field of undifferentiated matter from which our senses gather bits of information. The outside universe we perceive doesn't exist as such. 'Through a series of electrical and chemical reactions, we generate a reality internally. We create forests and oceans, warmth and cold. We read words, hear voices, and form interpretations. Then, in an instant, we produce a response.
All of this in a world of our own creation.
Regardless of whether or not we're formally making art, we are all living as artists. We perceive, filter, and collect data, then curate an experience for ourselves and others based on this information set. Whether we do this consciously or unconsciously, by the mere fact of being alive, we are active participants in the ongoing process of creation.
To live as an artist is a way of being in the world. A way of perceiving. A practice of paying attention. Refining our sensitivity to tune in to the more subtle notes. Looking for what draws us in and what pushes us away. Noticing what feeling tones arise and where they lead.
Attuned choice by attuned choice , your entire life is a form of self-expression. You exist as a creative being in a creative universe. A singular work of art.”
Did you like what he said? Want to buy the book?
Now if we go back to our initial starting point & Kanye’s simulation theory - How am I breaking the simulation?
No matter, how much you are exposed to nature, how much you are involved with your artistic side, or how your brain is wired. The more you aware of the simulation we are surrounded by, you will see them as walls or obstructions. In social and corporate world those obstructions look like do’s and don’t’s. Some even, do not necessarily mean anything they are just there to limit natural behavior. I am not advocating for some “hippie imaginary world”, what I am against is - boxed thinking which is limiting our capabilities. Hence, living in a simulation where, kids & adults cannot be themselves due to externally imposed obstructions. They have to ACT as someone, whom they are not. They have to fall in line with expectations of other people. They cannot be true to themselves. I consider a lot of traits of our simulation unnecessary & draining. As a result of which, we end up thinking “inside the box”.
Although this article is not about parenting, I want to tell you a story about how I am trying to put my daughter into that boxed thinking. It is a story of me and her having a dialogue. Every now and then, I pick her up from school and spend some time together. What we do on those days is usually completely up to her…
We can fly a kite, grab some food, get ice cream, stick to the school playground or go to a park. I usually give her the freedom to face the consequences of her decisions. We act “freely” with one another. “Dad can I wear this to the park? “Daughty, you can even go there wearing your pajamas, it is a park!”. I let her be herself, even if it is with choice of clothes.
What I expect from her even at this age is, developing an ability to make rational decisions based on her emotions. Moreover, face consequences of those decisions. It is OK to fail. I like how she usually knows what she wants and willingly vocalizes it. She is like me, but became so, much sooner than I did. She even has her own recharge time or as I call it "me time". The other day she told me “Dad can I stay quite for a bit and not talk?", I said sure and we stayed silent for a bit, until her curiosity spilled out a question. I respected her request for silence.
One of those days, during that car ride, a dialogue starts like this.
Me: Do you know where I was today?
Her: No, where were you?
Me: I traveled to the future and back
At this point she knows that I am goofing around, but plays along.
Her: What did you see?
Me: I saw you!
Her: What did you say to me?
Me: Before I tell you what I said, I am going to describe you to YOU.
Your future version was slender and had shorter hair, because your Mom washes your hair today, but in the future you were 19 and too lazy to keep long hair. (She gave me a giggle here, because she would be lazy to do that)
You were healthy, apparently you have been eating your veggies, fruits, fish, potatoes and all other goodies that keep you healthy.
You also did some sort of sports, not sure what exactly, but it was obvious that you regularly exercise. I loved seeing you healthy like that.
You were studying at a university, not sure who you going to become after graduation. No matter who you become, I expect you do to be very good at it. However, you seemed to be a very good student. Not because you want to get straight A's all the time. You were a good student because you like learning new things, you were curious. With an aspiration to have better knowledge about the world around you.
At this point I look back at her, just to find her with her dilated round pupils really focused at what I am saying.
Do you know what I said to you?
Her: mhmmm?
Me: I said I am proud of you! After which, I traveled back in time to "now”, to pick you up from school.
I do not tell her what to be or who to be. I persuade her to be extraordinary, healthy, rational and wise. The rest is up to her. This is how I do not force her into a simulation. In my humble way, this is how I shatter the boxed thinking and break the simulation. Only creative ones become extraordinary & end up changing the world.
Pura Vida!
Rashad
Comentarios