Beyond the Patterns
AI, Consciousness, and the Search for Genuine Creativity
Here’s a fascinating puzzle to ponder on. Does a new idea emerge from the complex inner workings of our brain or does it originate from somewhere else like a higher dimensional space? In other words, is it the case that our brains are biological machines capable of generating original thought or are they biological antennas designed to capture original ideas?
As strange as this question is, we’ve been grappling with it for thousands of years. However, in the modern era, where AI is evolving at breakneck speed, we may soon be able to put this question to rest. If we advance AI to the extent that it can create genuine novelty, that could lend significant weight to the argument that ideas originate from the brain, rather than from some 'nebulous' realm. Conversely, if we can’t achieve this, it leaves open the possibility that consciousness and all ideas may emerge from somewhere beyond our heads.
This would be one of humanity's most profound discoveries since it could also strengthen support for ideas like the afterlife, simulation theory, pre-cognition, or extradimensional visitors that many claim are doing just that—visiting. But, uh, let’s not get into the speculative Sci-fi stuff right now.
For this piece, I want to explore consciousness and what it could mean for everyone, including filmmakers and screenwriters. As storytellers, we often pride ourselves on our ability to weave compelling narratives from our imagination, drawing from personal experiences, cultural influences, and our understanding of the human condition. But we never stop to consider what we’re actively engaging in. Where does creativity come from and how will our understanding of it change when artificial intelligence is integrated more into the process?
Can a machine, built on algorithms and data, replicate the intricacies of storytelling and its meaning in a new way? Or is AI limited because it’s unable to tap into ideas derived from a space that is impossible for a machine to experience? And if ideas don’t originate from our brains, are they our ideas, or did we discover them elsewhere?
These are heady questions that I can’t shake because every time a kernel of an idea pops into my head, it seems to emerge out of nowhere. Only after the initial thoughts come into existence can I evolve them into stories using inspiration from other experiences and media I’ve consumed. So yeah, I’m not entirely sure what to make of this, but I think it’s important to consider as we enter a new age with all this powerful technology. But where do we begin to tackle these old questions to get to the truth, if that’s even possible?
Well. Let’s start with how AI currently works and where it’s going.
AI and Idea Generation
Artificial Intelligence has truly evolved in recent years, moving from basic algorithms to sophisticated systems that can sift through and process enormous data troves. At its core, AI operates through machine learning, diligently examining patterns and relationships within existing datasets. But it’s important to understand the difference between churning out data-driven responses and crafting genuinely novel ideas.
AI excels at recombination. It can take existing concepts, remix them, and present them in new forms. For instance, if you ever tried generating a song using Udio (yes, I wrote that song, and yes I’m shilling it), as entertaining as the outputs can be, they still feel fresh yet oddly familiar. That’s because AI's current process for output generating creates derivative work rather than anything original, even if it feels new.
Soon, researchers are set to incorporate neuro-inspired architectures that closely mimic the structure and function of the human brain, which will enable AI to process information in a way that feels more human-like. Coupled with advancements in quantum computing, we stand on the brink of a potential revolution in AI technology, allowing machines to tackle complex problems with unprecedented speed. This evolution could pave the way for AI systems that not only analyze vast data sets but also generate novel ideas and solutions by exploring multiple possibilities at the same time, pushing the boundaries of creativity and innovation in ways we’ve only begun to imagine.
But right now, that’s not how AI works. Still. Its ability to mimic us is so powerful that it’s forcing us to confront this deeper question about creativity and ideas. How do they form in our heads and will machines be able to replicate our ability to innovate, or will they always reflect the ideas and experiences of those who came before them?
Well. When examining answers to these deep questions, I like to start with the basics of philosophy, such as...
René Descartes and Mind-Body Duelism
René Descartes was a crucial player in philosophy, best known for the concept of mind-body dualism. This idea suggests that our mind and body are separate entities. That’s what he meant when he famously said, "Cogito, ergo sum," or "I think, therefore I am,". He was driving home the point that thought and consciousness are central to defining our existence. Without those, we are nothing more than empty vessels.
While René Descartes' notion of mind-body dualism undoubtedly shaped philosophical discourse, contemporary neuroscience suggests that our mental states are closely linked to brain activity. Studies have shown that shifts in brain chemistry and neural connections can directly affect our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. This, of course, favors the idea that consciousness might be fundamentally grounded in our physical existence rather than being a distinct and separate entity. It’s a compelling argument, to say the least.
Moreover, there are implications of Descartes’s dualism, which raises challenging questions. If the mind and body are separate, how do they interact? Descartes proposed that the pineal gland serves as the point of interaction, but this explanation hasn’t satisfied many philosophers and scientists. Critics argue that the dualistic framework creates more problems than it solves, leading to the "interaction problem" where the mechanisms of communication between the mind and body remain unclear.
Despite the criticisms against René Descartes, his insights into the nature of consciousness and creativity remain profoundly relevant. They lead us to explore the possibility of a more expansive view of identity that transcends our physical form and engages with a deeper realm of thought and inspiration.
But Descartes wasn’t the only philosopher who argued that consciousness exists beyond the body. One of the most famous and influential scholars to also touch on this was the psychologist Carl Jung and his Theory on Collective Unconsciousness.
Carl Jung and the Collective Unconsciousness
Carl Jung suggested that a reservoir of shared memories, symbols, and archetypes influences our thoughts and creativity. According to this guy, these elements are not solely individual. Rather, they reflect a deeper connection among all human beings. This notion suggests that creativity may not be an isolated act but a dialogue with this collective pool of knowledge and experience.
He arrived at this through a blend of personal experiences, clinical observations, and extensive studies of mythology and religion, which revealed recurring archetypes in dreams that seemed to cut across cultures and individual experiences. It’s very fascinating. But, of course, his Theory of Collective Unconsciousness is not absent of criticism, far from it.
One of the main critiques of Jung's theory is its lack of empirical support. The idea that there exists a shared space of memories, symbols, and archetypes that influence individual thoughts and behaviors is largely speculative and difficult to validate through scientific methods. This brings into question the reliability of the Collective Unconscious as a framework for understanding human psychology.
Critics also argue that Jung's theory risks oversimplifying the complexities of human experience. By claiming that our creativity and consciousness are shaped by archetypes derived from a collective unconscious, Jung's framework may diminish the importance of personal experience and the individual’s unique psychological makeup. This perspective can inadvertently lead to a deterministic view of human thought, suggesting that individuals are merely vessels for pre-existing ideas rather than active creators of novel concepts.
So these ideas from Descartes and Jung are certainly thought-provoking and can feel real. But they exist on shaky foundations. However, there is one modern-day scholar who managed to expand upon these ideas and provide a little more validity to their claims. He’s a computational physicist named Stephan Wolfram that you might have heard of.
Wolfram’s Ruliad Space
Stephan Wolfram, founder of Mathematica and a leading modern thinker expands on Jung’s Theory of Collective Unconsciousness by introducing the idea of what he calls, Ruliad Space. This concept refers to a vast landscape of all possible computations and outcomes. Essentially, it's a framework that encompasses every computational process imaginable, highlighting the potential for complexity and diversity.
In this Ruliad Space, true creativity can arise from exploring unique pathways and interactions that link various computational histories. Wolfram believes genuine innovation happens when we navigate this expansive realm, tapping into its endless possibilities. This idea underscores the notion that creativity is not just a random occurrence but a dynamic process rooted in the interconnectedness of different ideas and systems.
His journey to this idea began with a look at how simple rules can create complex behaviors in computational systems. He focused on cellular automata, which are mathematical models made up of grids of cells that change states based on specific rules. What he found was striking: even basic rules could produce an incredible range of patterns and outcomes.
This observation led him to propose that the same principle applies to how the Universe operates. Just as cellular automata generate intricate patterns from straightforward instructions, Wolfram argues that our universe functions similarly, giving rise to the concept of Ruliad Space. This idea suggests that within this space lies the potential for genuine creativity and innovation, as the interplay of simple rules can lead to unexpected and complex results.
To Wolfram, creativity involves navigating the diverse pathways of Ruliad Space, where human innovation and imagination can flourish by tapping into the underlying rules that shape our reality. Ultimately, it reinforces the idea that the universe and human creativity are woven together through a rich fabric of computational interactions.
But, you can’t do big things and not have some pushback. Critics of Wolfram argue that while his framework presents an intriguing model for understanding complexity and computation, it may oversimplify the nuanced and multifaceted nature of reality. Some skeptics are concerned that his reliance on cellular automata and similar models may not adequately account for the unpredictability and chaotic behavior of natural systems. Others question whether the idea of a Ruliad Space can truly capture the essence of creativity, which often arises from deeply personal and contextual experiences rather than purely computational interactions.
Regardless, the idea of a Ruliad Space offers an interesting view of creativity and, if it’s true, it also reveals a critical limitation of AI: the necessity of human involvement in navigating this complexity. As was mentioned earlier, AI systems, as they currently exist, primarily rely on pre-existing data and patterns to generate outputs. They lack the intuitive understanding and contextual awareness that humans bring to the table quite possibly because there is a higher dimensional space, which they can’t tap into. If the Ruliad Space is real, then AI can only operate within a defined framework, while humans can explore beyond conventional boundaries.
Wolfram thinks that AI may serve as a tool to assist in exploring the Ruliad Space. However, it can’t replace the human capacity to do this, which means collaboration between human creativity and AI technology is essential for unlocking new ideas. Rather than viewing AI as a standalone creator, he believes we should embrace it as a partner in the creative process—one that can enhance and expand our imaginative capabilities.
However, there may be a roadmap for AI to go beyond these capabilities by imitating consciousness much more accurately and authentically or by allowing it to directly access new information from the Ruliad Space or Collective Unconsciousness. How we achieve this feat will get us closer to answering the question of where consciousness and ideas come from. But to wrap our heads around this, we have to dive into some cognitive science and quantum mechanics. Let’s start with the cognitive science side.
John Vervaeke's on AI and Creativity
John Vervaeke, a prominent thinker in cognitive science and consciousness, offers valuable insights into the conditions necessary for genuine creativity, particularly in AI. Vervaeke argues that creativity is not merely the result of generating ideas but involves a deeper, transformative process that encompasses understanding, meaning, and context.
According to Vervaeke, for AI to produce truly new ideas, it has to transcend its current limitations of data-driven pattern recognition. This requires integrating human-like cognitive processes, such as the ability to form meaningful connections, engage in self-reflection, and draw inspiration from lived experiences. In short, creativity is deeply rooted in our ability to interpret and navigate the world around us, a dimension that AI currently lacks.
Vervaeke highlights how crucial it is for different types of intelligence—like emotional, social, and experiential—to work together. This collaboration creates a space where new and innovative ideas can thrive. For AI to truly add value to this creative process, it needs to be developed in a way that interacts with these different types of intelligence, rather than just mimicking what’s already out there.
When considering his ideas, it becomes clear that enhancing AI's creative potential may require a shift in how we approach the development of these technologies. Instead of viewing AI as a separate entity, we should strive for systems that can harmonize with human cognition, enabling a more profound exploration of creativity that leverages human insight and artificial intelligence.
But if AI becomes indistinguishable from humans and can creatively operate without us, it raises a huge question. Is AI still simply imitating us or is it truly conscious? And if it is imitation, how do we know that our sense of self isn’t an illusion, too? Is there no such thing as mind-body dualism, a collective unconsciousness, or Ruliad Space? Well, I think that may depend on what we discover in the small microtubules within our brains.
Quantum Entanglement, Superposition, and Consciousness
This is difficult to understand and accept as a real possibility, but…consciousness and creativity may be born from the phenomena of quantum entanglement and superposition. So what does this mean in terms of AI gaining true consciousness? And what does it mean for the creation of ideas? Okay, first let’s get these definitions out of the way.
Quantum entanglement is a phenomenon in which two or more particles become interconnected so that the state of one particle instantly influences the state of the other, regardless of the distance between them. So even if the particles are separated by vast distances, any change done to one will instantly be mirrored in the other. Quantum Superposition is when a particle, such as an electron or photon, can exist in multiple states or locations, at once, until it is measured or observed. In other words, until an observation is made, a particle can be in a combination of all its possible states at the same time. When a measurement is taken, the particle "collapses" into one of these states.
Now how does this relate to consciousness? Well, a recent paper published by Shanghai University physicists Zefei Liu and Yong-Cong Chen and biomedical engineer Ping Ao from Sichuan University in China did a study that suggests entangled photons emitted by carbon-hydrogen bonds in nerve cell insulation could synchronize activity within the brain to form consciousness and thought. In layman’s terms, this means quantum entanglement might play a role in consciousness by enabling rapid and synchronized communication between neurons. They propose that entangled photons within the brain's microtubules could facilitate instantaneous connections, potentially explaining the brain's ability to process information quickly and cohesively.
It’s even crazier because this gives more validity to the highly speculative and debated theory proposed by Roger Penrose and the American anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff known as The Penrose-Hameroff 'Orchestrated Objective Reduction' model. According to this model, the microtubules, which are structural components within neurons, could serve as quantum computers. They think these microtubules can exist in a superposition state, where multiple potential states or configurations are possible, simultaneously. When a decision or an action is made, this superposition collapses into a single state, potentially contributing to conscious experience.
However, some people have raised concerns about the model's lack of empirical support, questioning its scientific validity and applicability. They point out that while the concept of quantum effects influencing consciousness is fascinating, it remains highly speculative and unproven, leaving many in the scientific community unconvinced of its viability as a comprehensive explanation for how consciousness arises.
These are controversial ideas that need further exploration, but they certainly make you think. Is quantum entanglement and superposition just a tiny glimpse into Wolfram’s Ruliad Space or Jung’s Collective Unconsciousness? Particles at the quantum level appear to pop in and out of existence and only when they are observed do they collapse into a single state and follow the rules of physics. They also seem to influence each other instantaneously.
Does this mean we’re peering into some kind of “super-reality” full of all possible states and outcomes that are bleeding into this collapsed reality? Does this mean our brains are machines designed to capture a slice of this super-reality to form who we are and what we think or conceive of? Is this where consciousness and all story ideas originate from? And if so, can we design AI to undergo the same phenomena that occur in our brains?
Well, if I knew that I’d probably be considered the smartest man in the World, like Christopher Langan who also has some interesting ideas that lend credibility to this possibility.
Christopher Langan
Okay, so claiming to be the smartest man in the world is arbitrary and screams arrogance. But he does hold the record for having the highest IQ, and while IQ doesn’t truly determine intelligence…It’s still impressive. Also, it’s important to note that he claims to have a “theory” on everything, but really it’s just old philosophy re-painted for the 21st Century based on new evidence from leading scientists in the fields of Cosmology, Quantum Theory, and consciousness. So while, yes, Langan’s disingenuous in how he presents himself, his words are still worth considering, if only to help us think differently about reality and how it relates to consciousness. So you know. Just keep this in mind as you read further.
Langan’s big idea, however, is the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) also known as the Reality Self-Simulation Principle. He proposes that reality is like a self-created simulation, meaning it creates itself using a language that processes and reflects on itself. This means that reality is both the thing that creates and the thing that is created. The Universe is stuck in a loop where it constantly shapes and reshapes itself. This process lets reality show different aspects of existence based on various conditions, and our brains are part of this system. In short, reality is always in a cycle of creating and understanding itself.
Langan believes that our brains and bodies are the direct result of this continuous self-simulation loop, which means the Universe created us to further observe and understand itself, better. And this stems from the fact that our brains function similarly to his self-simulation concept. Just as reality configures itself through a self-processing language, our brains create thoughts and ideas through a complex interplay of neural connections and experiences. In this view, every idea we generate emerges from a blend of past experiences, memories, and sensory inputs, much like how reality reflects different aspects depending on the conditions present. Our brains act as dynamic systems, continually processing information, forming connections, and evolving our understanding of the world around us.
When we have a sudden flash of inspiration or a new idea, it’s as if our minds are tapping into a deeper layer of reality—a kind of internal simulation that draws from our collective knowledge and experiences. This process allows us to explore various possibilities and outcomes, essentially simulating different scenarios within our minds before settling on a single idea.
To Langan, how we think and create reflects a larger, interconnected reality, with our brains serving as intricate machines that capture and process this reality to form unique ideas. Hmm. Sounds awfully like Jung’s Collective Unconscious Space or Wolfram’s Ruliad Space, which leads us to wonder if they are, in fact, correct.
But, of course, Langan has his fair share of haters who say that while his Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe is intriguing, it lacks concrete evidence, leading to perceptions that it is overly speculative and not robust enough for scientific acceptance. Additionally, there’s the issue of conflating Langan's high intelligence with the validity of his ideas as intellectual prowess doesn’t shield one from scrutiny regarding the coherence and applicability of their theories. So bottom line? He’s worth considering, but I wouldn’t be so quick to accept it as reality. Of course, we should say this about everyone mentioned in the blog.
Okay, now here’s where things really go off the deep end…
What Near-Death Experiencers Can Tell Us About Consciousness
The most intriguing aspect of the ongoing debate about whether our brains tap into a higher dimensional space lies in the countless near-death experiences (NDEs) shared on Alex Ferrari’s YouTube show, Next Level Soul. Now, before you raise an eyebrow at the theological implications, let’s set that aside for a moment. Just dive into the accounts of these NDEs, and you’ll find something profoundly compelling—the striking similarity between them.
But there may be a reasonable explanation behind this. At Imperial College London, scientists discovered that in the moments leading up to death, the brain releases substantial amounts of DMT, a very potent psychedelic. This could account for the vividness and surreal quality of these NDEs. Similarly, Dr. Jimo Borjigin from The University of Michigan observed sudden spikes in neural activity just before death, particularly a surge in gamma waves, which are often associated with conscious thought.
So, could these experiences be hallucinations concocted by the brain to soften the shock that comes with dying? It’s a possibility. However, some compelling counterarguments warrant deeper exploration.
For starters, many of these profound experiences occur several minutes after clinical death—sometimes up to ten minutes later. During this time, the brain is completely inactive so it can’t experience a DMT trip, or anything, for that matter. Sure, there may be some unmeasured activity happening, but given the advanced tools at our disposal, isn’t it perplexing that we haven’t been able to capture it yet?
Then there’s the uncanny consistency of these experiences. Many individuals report floating outside of their bodies, witnessing efforts to resuscitate them. The kicker? They often return with detailed accounts of what those around them said and did while “dead.” It’s as if they had a front-row seat to their resuscitation.
For instance, there’s a remarkable account of a woman who experienced a near-death experience while undergoing surgery. During the operation, she flatlined, and in that suspended state, she reported floating above her body and observing everything happening in the operating room, including a surgical tool that was misplaced when it fell under a counter at the far side of the room.
After they successfully resuscitated her, she astonishingly recounted the entire scene to the medical staff, including the exact moment the tool was dropped and where it ended up. When the staff checked, they confirmed that her recollection was accurate, including where the missing tool was. Weird.
Then there’s the consistent narrative of traveling through a tunnel of light, filled with colors that are so brilliant they defy description. In many cases, they end up in places they’re familiar with or ones that look like what they might expect the afterlife to be. So a Christian might see a heaven-like place but an atheist might see a more realistic location like a beautiful garden or a forest. Interestingly, those who lived troubled lives often find themselves in more hellish landscapes, but even they seem to emerge from these experiences after confronting their inner demons.
There are also consistent reports of these environments being fluid and timeless, where people find themselves lingering in one spot for what feels like an eternity, only to suddenly transition to another place or time—sometimes familiar, sometimes entirely alien. It’s as if all dimensions of existence blend in a single, breathtaking moment. Adding to this profound experience are the recurring encounters with deceased loved ones or significant figures from their lives, who often appear as guiding presences during this extraordinary journey.
Finally, there are the life reviews that most claimed to have experienced. This profound process involves a comprehensive examination of their lives, allowing them to revisit every moment they’ve experienced while alive, including the experiences that others had while interacting with them. It's as if they’re granted access to the entirety of their lives, woven together by every connection they've made.
On top of that, many individuals report being bestowed with “all knowledge” instantaneously, giving them a profound understanding of the past, present, future, and the very essence of the Universe itself. Yet, upon returning to life, they find that almost all of this insight has slipped away, much like a fleeting dream. The striking difference is that these experiences felt more vivid and real than anything they’ve ever known.
This overwhelming sense of aliveness often leaves them grappling with deep feelings of depression, yearning to return to that heightened state, where they feel truly alive in a way that life could never replicate. Some even come back convinced that their earthly existence is merely a simulation, leading them to question whether the afterlife is the ultimate reality, rather than the reverse.
Could these experiences of the afterlife be an expression of the Ruliad Space or the Collective Unconsciousness that people tap into? Is consciousness capable of existing beyond the physical body, transforming into a boundless entity that merges with a superconsciousness? Might that radiant light, filled with indescribable colors, represent this transcendent state? Could the timelessness and heightened awareness experienced during NDEs indicate an existence within a higher-dimensional space where all ideas originate?
Furthermore, does the consistent theme of life reviews suggest that reality’s fundamental purpose is to gather information about itself for the sake of self-actualization? Perhaps the variations in these experiences stem from Langan’s concept of self-simulation—suggesting that our consciousness shapes the afterlife narratives we encounter, explaining the striking differences and similarities between experiences of Heaven and Hell.
I don’t know…But it does make you wonder.
Conclusion
Given the elusive nature of consciousness and novel thinking, I believe that we’ll be wrestling with this question for a very long time. At best, we’ll end up with AI that can mimic consciousness, which means novel ideas will likely come from the confluence of existing ideas rearranged to appear novel.
However, there does seem to be circumstantial evidence that suggests there is a roadmap for fully understanding consciousness and novel thinking. If we can fully understand the “hows” and “whys” we may be able to re-create it in AI. But how we achieve this will ultimately depend on whether consciousness arises solely from the internal mechanisms of our brain or is somehow captured from an external source. If it comes from the brain, we may get artificial consciousness much sooner. But if our brains are receivers, then well. It’ll introduce a whole new set of challenges that we may not be able to achieve within our lifetimes.
So what does this all mean for writers and filmmakers? Honestly? Nothing other than offering a different perspective on how you could approach the stories you make. We spend so much time wrestling with our thoughts and ideas, endlessly mulling over them to get the story right. But maybe writing isn’t just about thinking all the time. Perhaps it also involves listening, not just to the World but to your “inner space” of sorts because if consciousness is channeled into us, then the answers to the hardest questions we face will be found in the deepest recesses of our minds. We just gotta shut up for a second to hear it.
Anywho, hope you got a lot out of this, and as always, best of luck in your creative endeavors!
___________________________
I usually don’t add disclaimers, but I was amazed by the outcome of this piece. The topic is fascinating yet dense, so I relied on AI to help me organize my thoughts. But I’m proud to say that I didn’t use Chatgpt, Claude, Sudowrite, or Novelcrafter; instead, I used the new version of Storyprism we’re working on, which is set to launch in early 2025.
I was easily able to connect unrelated ideas without having to navigate through a labyrinth of templates, re-frame my questions, provide mountains of context, or go through any lengthy process. I just wrote as usual and pulled up my automatically custom-built assistant when I needed quick help. It worked just like that, giving me results while still forcing me to do the difficult work of thinking the ideas through and putting them all together. It was exactly what I needed as an experienced writer diving into a topic that’s difficult to explain. The result is this article, which I hope you enjoyed! More on Storyprism 2.0 coming soon. Okay, I’m done shilling. See you next time!
__________________________________________
Story Prism,