What’s in a quiet moment?

2017-12-25 16.31.07_preview

Buddhists advocate stilling the mind, to quieten the monkey brain and becoming aware of reality. Not reality as we imagine it in our brain, but reality as an experience of the senses. Necessarily such experience is in the present moment. Unlike thoughts, which are not only an imagined interpretation of our experience but typically also after the fact, or in anticipation of the next event.

Anyone who has experienced the ‘now’, the stillness of mind and the experience of the senses will vouch for the thrill of such out-of-ordinary state of being.

Zen masters say that this is experience can’t be talked about because such talk has nothing in common with the experience itself. Not unlike trying to describe the taste of food that hasn’t been tasted. Or the fragrance of flowers that we haven’t smelled before.

But at genetic fractals we are intellectuals and we are capable of sensing through understanding. A sort of secondary sense. Not very zen.

What happens in a thought-free moment?


Without wanting to venture into the space of “what is conscious thought?”, let’s simplify and think of our brain as two wet computers, the conscious brain and the subconscious brain. I know that this is grossly wrong since our brain is a continuous decentralized network of neurons with areas of specialization of which one(-ish) is ‘conscious’. But let’s be dualistic about this and label it as conscious and subconscious.

The conscious brain is forever interpreting, classifying, labeling, analyzing and making ‘sense’ of our experience such that we can do some thinking about it. The subconscious brain in the meantime runs our bodies and transmits sensory data through preprocessing centers into something that we could approximately call: experience.

Typically a cloud of sensory data gets processed into something resembling a chair or something else. At that point the conscious brain sticks a label on it and says: chair. It then ignores it completely because it is not relevant to the situation we are in. Unless we’re shopping for a chair in a furniture shop, chairs are of low cognitive importance.

So what happens if we “still the mind”, i.e. put the conscious processing of preprocessed data on pause?


Preprocessed data that has already been turned into more or less meaningful chunks are presented to us without interpretation. The phone in our hand, the chair across the table, the table itself, the stain on the napkin, the shoelace of the other guest, the shadow pattern of the window frame, the hissing coffee machine, the clanging of cups are all presented without qualification or priority as a full multi-sensorial scene, i.e. like a collection of props on a stage.

This is very different from ordinary experience where we only really see that which we are focusing on. In the extreme, when we focus on thoughts, we may not experience anything at all. Like driving a car for 5 kilometers and having no recollection of driving at all.

When the mind is still, we experience our world like we experience a beautiful painting or a photograph, except it is in many more dimensions (more than 20). When looking at a painting, we see composition, color palette, symmetries etc. Rarely will our eyes be drawn to a minor character or an irrelevant detail.

In our everyday experience that is exactly what happens. In a busy crowd our attention is drawn to a single person, or a shop sign or a street sign; it is almost impossible not to focus and instead see it all at once. But in our still mind world, we see whole scenes and a crying baby, or the billboard with a beautiful body are no more important than a discarded coke can in the gutter. All are equally attractive. And when we pay attention, all are stunning realities. All is beautiful.

Now that we are without thought, how about being in the moment?

Moments are strange things. They are a bit like the notion of absolute zero temperature: we know it must exist but it is actually unattainable and possibly non-existent.

It is not about fact but about effect.

Let’s imagine that a moment really exists. In such case, there can be no movement because to observe movement we need to see something change. A before and after. But in a moment there is only one fixed frame. No movement. No sound either because sound needs a vibration of air molecules. No light, because photons will remain frozen in space. Just like absolute zero temperature everything ‘freezes’ and the world as we know it ceases to exist. How could we experience a non-existent world in a fictional moment?

But hold on, surely if there is a past and a future, on its intersection there must be a present and a moment? And aren’t zen masters right when they claim that we can only sense the present moment?

Well, only approximately so. To experience the moment we still need synapses firing and neurons transmitting. We need our brain processing that ‘moment’.

In other words, we can experience a brief lapse of time but not zero time.

When you are in a ‘still mind’ state, you experience the world without conscious analysis and classification but it is not a frozen world. It may be a slow moving world. It may be a snapshot of the world which you experience quietly as a whole but the experience is full of life. The zen feeling of floating an inch above the ground, the ecstatic feeling of enlightenment is not a dead feeling of a frozen moment but a bright moment in flux.

The enlightenment experience is highly sensorial, taking in a flux of present sensations rather than a train of thoughts.

So is Eckhard Tolle completely wrong when he advocates the present moment in the Power of Now? When he says that things only happen in the present and that the past and future are hallucinations?


Factually, yes, he is wrong. There is no power in the moment; the moment is frozen and dead. But it still works. It works because he is telling people to center their thought on the moment. If they do, then those thoughts disappear because thoughts are always about the past or the future. This then makes space for the experience of the senses.

Eckhard Tolle probably knows this and his ‘teaching’ is highly effective. It is not about fact but about effect.

What’s in a quiet moment which is not a moment and i snot quiet because it requires some brain activity? As the zen masters say: you can’t talk about it and hope to convey the road to an enlightening experience. So whoever does, is fooling you. Me included.

But as mathematicians know, you may not be able to have a quiet moment but you can get their in the ‘limit’, i.e. get closer and closer. What’s in a quiet moment? The experience of the journey since the destination is only illusory. It is always the journey.


(This brain fry was offered to you by genetic fractals. You have now deserved a break.)



Exploring the unseen; the story of genetic fractals

Reposted from my design blog. I am preparing an exhibition of genetic fractal art and this is an introduction to this.

Genetic Fractals Design


With genetic fractals I am exploring the process of creation. A process that starts with nothing and evolves into something both beautiful and complex at once. Every artwork of genetic fractals has a clear origin: a thin line or a spike at the very heart of the form. From this origin, this seed, the shapes evolves and grows into the form.

But this work is only one facet of my search for creation. The question that I am really asking is: what is creation? What is it that makes something beautiful? What is it that makes it original and special? But underneath all of this lurks a deep question that humanity has pondered ever since it became conscious of itself: how did the most successful of all creations originate: life and its big sister, the universe?

Genetic fractals are my answer to that question. At its core is a mathematical theory…

View original post 495 more words

Randomness as the origin of creativity


When looking at the creative advances in technology, art, science or society that really changed the story of humanity, we see that they are all quantum leaps. What does that mean? It means that true innovation requires a departure from that which is already known. This is much more than out of the box thinking; this concerns a radical departure from mainstream thinking.

In my experimentation with random fractals I’ve come up with an interesting mechanism. By producing random shapes I noticed that some bear resemblance with shapes we see in nature. But equally and more importantly, some of these random forms I have never seen before and they are stunningly beautiful. In fact, I couldn’t create such forms myself because their aesthetic value wouldn’t occur to me until after their creation. But I am able to appreciate them for what they are once I see them.

What if this is the very mechanism of creativity?  The combination of random experimentation combined with our ability to recognize a valuable solution when we see it?

In other words, keep messing around until you find it.


I’ve been a student of creativity for the past 30 years, always looking for ways to stimulate creativity when needed. In the West I have found that Edward de Bono gets closest to providing a reliable method for creative thinking. He calls it lateral thinking and his methods are based on the idea that most of our thinking is linear and associative. Every thought we have leads to the next thought and so on. But if the breakthrough thought that we need is not connected in any way with any of our habitual thoughts, we can never think of it. And by definition breakthrough thoughts haven’t been had by anyone so they will never link to anyone’s thoughts if we follow linear thinking.

Lateral thinking is based on deliberately breaking associative and linear thinking. De Bono proposes many methods but they all rely on generating unconnected random thoughts. yes, random thoughts.

But in the East, the approach to creativity is contemplative and involves different forms of meditation. It would be impossible to provide a fair one line summary of eastern creativity but my incomplete one liner would be that we put ourselves in a state where a creative need is communicated to our subconscious mind which has a generative capacity that by far exceeds our conscious brain. When the subconscious mind finds a creative solution, it will pass it back to the conscious brain and provided that we are mindful, i.e. are paying attention, then we will have a near perfect answer to our creative challenge.

But my random genetic fractals tell an intriguing story which has its parallels. Creativity is about detecting original solutions among those we haven’t seen as yet. And we can find those unseen solutions by “closing our eyes” and generate them randomly.

This leaves us with two challenges. How do you create random solutions?  And how do you recognize a good solution when you see one?


For the first I have an answer. But it isn’t simple…

Underneath these genetic fractals is a genetic code. The genetic code, exactly like DNA drives the forms and features of these genetic fractals. So all I have to do is change the genetic code randomly and the genetic fractals will take on any form. Literally: any form. If I wait long enough they will create a bunny rabbit.

The same approach will work for any other domain. You can create a genetic code that underlies mathematics and by modifying that code randomly you will be able to find original mathematical formulas. You could create a genetic code that underlies movie scripts and generate truly original story lines. You can do this in music, mechanical engineering or for cooking recipes.

But now for the hard part. How do you recognize a winning solution, design or work of art when it has been created? In the case of genetic fractals, I only have to look through hundreds of random images and pick the ones that look great.

For music this would be doable if I’m only looking for short riffs or gorgeous jazz chords. (Note to self: try this next)

But mechanical engineering or maths would be harder. How do you test a thousand random formulas for their usefulness? How do you assess hundreds of engine designs to pick one that is actually great?

Underlying this challenge of recognizing winners is the need for expertise. If we don’t understand Jazz, we won’t recognize the next Herbie Hancock when we hear it.


So, perhaps not surprisingly, we can only be creative in areas of our expertise and experience. This brings up an interesting corollary. If we create something that we are not able to appreciate because we lack experience then chances are that someone else that has the experience would be able to recognize it for us. Therefore, we should surround ourselves with people that are smarter than ourselves so that we get the most out of our creativity and get better in the process. This makes a case for gurus and teachers.

But there is an even more interesting extension to this line of thinking. What if we create something that isn’t just beyond our own experience and ability to recognize for its innovative value but that is also beyond the cognition of any living human? What would happen is that the “invention of the century” would remain fully unseen and be lost.

This is a bit like showing your iPhone to a cat. Franklin, or whatever your cat is called, will only see a slab of something flat and hard. Or a more relevant test would be to travel back to the 1970’s and show your iPhone to some kid there. They would be astonished at your tiny flat TV set but the concept of Internet, mobile technology and social media would remain completely incomprehensible to them.

This inability to spot innovative solutions happens more than you may think. How often do you hear about some budding entrepreneur that has made a killing out of some ‘invention’ and your first thought is: I could easily have done that myself. Yes, you could have done. You might have done. Except that you didn’t and couldn’t have recognized the opportunity when it was staring you in the face all that time.

Louis Pasteur who discovered antibiotics by chance said “chance favors only the prepared mind”. He was absolutely right and we probably know it. Yet, much of human endeavor functions in an anti-deBonian fashion. We will insist in looking for the next best idea based on something cool we just read about. Forget it. It won’t work.

Get random and create.

When genetic fractals mate: select the fittest and cross-breed


You may have had the impression that “genetic” in “genetic fractals” was just a conceptual term to convey a notion that these fractals have a link with life. Actually, these fractals are build on a genetic code that is mathematically at their core.

Having created some new genetic fractals recently, I decided to take pairs of them and let them mate. We’ll skip the process which sadly isn’t nearly as fun as the way that other species ‘do it’ but it comes down to mixing the DNA of these genetic fractals by taking 50% of each parent and then growing a new genetic fractal from the new DNA. Above and below are two examples.

One of my objectives with this research is to use genetic fractals to create objects that are useful to humans. Common things like furniture and tools could be among them. If you grasp the concept of random genetic fractals of a useful form, i.e. you pick the winners and let them mate, you will see that this approach provides a perfect environment for evolutionary design where all the designer has to do is: select the fittest and cross-breed.


Images from a genetic fractal universe


Back in 2014 I excitedly announced the birth of a genetic fractal universe in my post “postcard from a new universe”. I then went on and blogged about spring and the joys of travel. Such are the meanderings of a distracted mind. But that new universe Continue reading Images from a genetic fractal universe

The nature of randomness


Randomness has a bad name. It is closely associated with chaos, unintended, unreliable, misguided and pointless. Strangely enough, randomness is at the very root of order. It is the cause of diversity in nature and guards us against descent into oblivion. Let’s celebrate randomness in this post. Continue reading The nature of randomness

Why thinking is a bad idea, if you want to get somewhere good


I’m currently deep in the depth of mathematical research into the equations behind genetic fractals. I’m also ever looking for the next thing to do. Regular work bores me quickly and right now my work is as regular as it gets and I can do it with my brain in sleep mode. The only redeeming hope is that the work is temporary and Continue reading Why thinking is a bad idea, if you want to get somewhere good