However, the evolution theory itself needs to be evolved over time to be adapted to the latest scientific developments.

The modern evolutionary synthesis was the first major update to Darwin’s model.

The main idea behind the update was integrating the latest achievements and understandings from biology in the original evolutionary framework. As many biologists believed that the mutation and natural selection are overrated in the evolutionary process.

Modern synthesis was not the last update. In recent years, many other evolutionary biologists are pushing for further developments in the evolutionary theory. Again by considering some other evolutionary motives beyond natural selection.

These new updates are called extended evolutionary synthesis. Although discussions about extending the Darwinian theory has been around for a couple of decades, last years, the Royal Society held various meetings and gathering hoping to achieve some consensus among biologists about a new up-to-date version of the  Darwinian model.

You can find a simple yet reliable account of the recent meeting of the prominent biologists about the extended evolutionary synthesis in Quanta Magazine. However, as discussions are mostly based on advanced laboratory experiments, they are easily understandable for us as general readers.

Putting aside all biological discussions and challenges, for anyone interested in complex systems, there are still some points that have to be included in the extended versions of the evolutionary framework.

The original idea of evolution is solely based on the competition between entities in an environment with limited resources. Therefore, the natural selection and survival of the fittest are considered as the main driving forces behind evolution in the original and even, extended model.

Despite many helpful descriptions provided by the theory, there’s a very fundamental vagueness in the model: We have not a clear definition of the fitness concept.

Evolutionists talk about survival of the fittest. But when you ask them about the fitness itself, you will hear: the survived species are the species with the highest fitness.

By the way, this is not the only problem with the original model. The science of complex systems tells us that even in the absence of the competition and the limited resources, still, the environmental constraints can push a complex system to adapt itself to the environment through self-organization.

This self-organizing capability in complex systems is close to the plasticity concept used by evolutionist biologists.

So, whether we call it an update or extension, we should hold in mind that any evolutionary model of a system has to consider two inherently different components.

Despite all the above discussion, critics of Darwinian theory should not be so happy. Even with these updates and challenges, Darwin still holds the highest position in the hierarchy of all scientists who have ever tried to describe the phenomenal emergence of life on the planet.

The post Complex Systems and The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis appeared first on webmindset.

Although such an assumption could be true for the human species, for many other species who have shorter lifespans, it’s possible to arrange laboratory settings exhibiting the evolutionary process.

Here you can see a time lapse video published by Harvard Medical School demonstrating evolution of the bacteria against antibiotics over a couple of generations.

The whole evolutionary process happened in about ten days.

Considering the distinction between the special theory of evolution and general theory of evolution, the following experiment can be regarded as a demonstration of the special version.

The experiment is administered by Tamy Lieberman and Roy Kishony.

The post Evolution Demonstrated: time lapse video of bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics appeared first on webmindset.

Darwin’s theory of evolution itself has experienced an evolutionary process. A process that started around a very sensitive topic: The origin of species.

As it always has been a long historical debate between believers and non-believers about the origin of the world and the humans, soon both camps found a new battleground for the old debate.

However, as they are just proposing two opposing models of the world which never could be proved or disproved, as we know, neither advocates of intelligent design school (or so-called creationists) nor proponents of the evolutionary theories, would never be able to push the other party out of the game.

Creationists – as they say – are talking about something beyond human sense and sensibility. Therefore, their view of the world could never be disproved scientifically.

On the other side of the battle, evolutionists are trying to collect scientific evidence and, science is inherently doubtful about itself. In the eyes of the scientists, The Science (with big S) will be forever incomplete and therefore, a real scientist would never believe in his assertions.

Scientists just consider their theories as working models of the perceived reality and nothing more.

Special theory of evolution vs. General theory of evolution

Kerkut’s distinction between the special and general theory of evolution is one of the simplest descriptions available in the literature:

There is a theory which states that many living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the ‘Special Theory of Evolution’ and can be demonstrated in certain cases by experiments. On the other hand, there is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.

Some of the critics of the evolution theory have accepted it up to a certain level which is referred to as the special theory of evolution. However, most of them consider the general theory of evolution as an overgeneralization of the concept.

Evolution as a problem-solving tool: a lost opportunity

Although the origin of Darwin’s evolution theory goes back to his researches about the origin of the species, applications of his model have potential to go much further than the original use.

However, the puzzle of creation has been so amusing for the homo sapiens that most of them couldn’t take a look at more urgent and closer problems waiting for a workable solution.

Sure, I’m talking about the ordinary people with a common understanding of science. Because for the majority of the scientists, the evolution has already proved itself as a helpful approach for the understanding of the complex systems.

Despite all the above points, it’s still a pity that we humans have missed the opportunity to use this brilliant tool at its full potential for understanding and re-engineering our environment.

For evolution to be used as a problem-solving tool, you need the following pre-conditions:

• A solution generation process (sure every proposed solution can be partially or entirely wrong)
• Either a long timespan, for solving the problem or a fast and powerful solution processing system
• A process (or property) in the system which promotes variation in the proposed solutions
• A selection process that prefers some of the solutions to the others. Such a selection process can emerge in most of the environments with limited resources. Every environment with limited resources inevitably forces some of the solutions out of the game.
• A retention process, helping the preferred solutions to survive or transmit their experience to the next generation.

The above concept with the same or similar wording can be found in texts of Dawkins or other evolution theorists.

Although the debates between creationists and evolutionists seem to have no end – at least in the near future – the evolution as a problem-solving tool would remain the most brilliant invention or innovation or discovery of the humans ever since they have become conscious of their existence in the universe.

Genetic Algorithms, Complex Systems, Mathematical Optimization Models, A/B testings and conversion optimization (in digital marketing) are just a few samples of the species evolved in the universe that Darwin created for us.

The post Special theory of evolution vs. General theory of evolution appeared first on webmindset.

The story of the Ship of Theseus

Before delving into details, let’s read the original version of the ship’s story as appeared in Plutarch’s book (+/+):

“The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.”

The Pluratch’s story is the first known appearance of the Ship of Theseus’ Paradox or Theseus’ Boat as it is sometimes called. Let’s sum up the story:

The story of the Ship of Theseus illustrates various possibilities and paradoxes of identity over time and has attracted the attention of many great philosophers for centuries. Heraclitus, Plato, Hobbes, and Locke are among many thinkers who have discussed this story in one way or the other over the course of the last two millennia.

The second form of the Theseus Paradox

Thomas Hobbes, the great philosopher of the 17th century, posed a new paradox based on this old story. We can call it the second form or the complicated variation of the paradox:

The second form of the paradox is more helpful in discussing the concept of identity. Thus in the rest of this article, we will stick to the second variation. Just to make it easier to refer, in the rest of the text, I’ll use the term voyaging ship to denote the ship that started the voyage and has the crew on it, and the term assembled ship for the other ship, the one built with old parts.

Importance of the Theseus Paradox

Identity is one of the concepts which many metaphysical models of the world rely on it. When you believe that every human has a never-changing identity, it seems more reasonable to have a dualistic view of humans: body and spirit.

The answer to the Ship of Theseus paradox

It’s hard, even impossible, to provide an answer to this paradox. First, I will show why it is hard to provide an answer. And then, I will describe why the question itself is problematic.

To discuss the paradox, it would be easier to quantify the case. Let’s suppose the voyaging ship has 1000 pranks, and on the voyage, they are changed one by one.

After changing the first prank, what do you think about the identity of the ship? Is the ship still Theseus’s Ship? Most probably, you would say yes. It’s still the same ship. If the side mirror of your car falls down or if you injure one of your fingers and the doctors amputate it, you are still the same person. In the same way, we may lose one tooth and implant a new one, and no one would believe that we have changed our identity.

The problem arises when we change most of the parts, e.g. 900 pranks or 950 pranks, and so. In this case, the paradox seems meaningful: Is the voyaging ship still the original ship?

Now we can put forth another question: exactly from which prank did Theseus’ Paradox become meaningful and relevant? 200th? 300th? 501th? 900th?

Here’s where a person with Wittgenstein’s worldview can give you an answer: The ambiguity does not come from the ships but from the question itself. We ask whether the current voyaging ship is the same as the original ship. And we forget that sameness has not a clear meaning in our case. We have taken out the word from our daily language and put it in a philosophical context (+). So the problem lies in the question itself. And we have just to ask ourselves: is sameness a meaningful term in such a context? It seems not.

A similar paradox in another world

If the Ship of Theseus is too far from your daily experiences and you feel you do not have any intuition about it, there’s a more approachable case. This case is brought up by Shane J. Ralston in KISS and the philosophy (I use my own story and narrative, but with the same essence).

Consider a music band named X consisting of four members. One of the members leaves the band and starts a separate band with another name. The first band finds a substitute for him and continues for a few years without losing popularity. After some conflict in the band, another member separates from the band and joins the band of the old friend. Over the course of a decade, the story happens two more times. Now we have the X band without the original members and a new band with another name but the original members. Which is the real X band?

Here, each member has their own identity, so the nature of this paradox is different from Theseus’ Paradox. But still, it gives you some feeling about the challenges around the identity concept. And the answer to this paradox is similar to the original paradox. It revolves around the meaninglessness of sameness.

Theseus and Ariadne, from ‘Game of Mythology’ (The Metropolitan Museum)

Questions & Answers

Was there a real ship called the Ship of Theseus? Where is the Ship of Theseus?

We don’t know the answer. As mentioned above, what we know about the ship comes from Plutarch’s book. You can find the original text in the archive of Tufts University or MIT’s classics archive. Thus regarding the whereabout of the ship, we can say, according to Plutarch, the ship was stored in a museum in Athens, and we have not any further information about its destiny.

Which term is correct: Theseus’ Paradox or Ship of Theseus?

In most books and articles, the following terms are used interchangeably: Theseus’ Paradox, Ship of Theseus, Theseus’ Boat, Paradox of Theseus, philosophical boat, Theseus Ship paradox, etc.

But in case you are sensitive to language delicacies, it’s better to use «Theseus’ Paradox» for the general paradox of identity continuity and consider «The Ship of Theseus» as one of the physical manifestations of the case. As you have seen in the KISS case above, this paradox can have various manifestations in different realms.

Does Theseus’ Paradox have any meaning or application in the age of technology?

Unlike many old stories and paradoxes that are irrelevant today, the Ship of Theseus Paradox is even more relevant to our contemporary challenges and concerns. Nowadays, the question of identity has just gotten more complicated: How does identity relate to change, augmentation, and enhancement? What does Theseus’ story have to tell about the challenges of post-humanism and trans-humanism?

What are the other articles worth reading regarding this paradox?

With a brief search on the web, you will find different versions of the paradox and various debates over it. Here are a few articles I’d recommend checking out:

• Identity over time (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Relative Identity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• The Ship of Theseus (brain pickings)

The post The Ship of Theseus | A paradox about meaning of identity appeared first on webmindset.

Here I’m going to list some of the common behavioral characteristics of the complex systems:

Unpredictability or limited predictability

Although it’s popular to consider complex systems as unpredictable entities, it would be more precise if we say complex systems have limited predictability. 

It goes without saying that predictability is not an absolute property of an entity and it can only be measured and evaluated after choosing another entity as the observer (The measurement reference).

Leverage and Dampening

Sometimes a minor change in part of the system leads to a very large scale dynamics in the other parts of the system. Also, other times, a major change in the system disappears over time, and the system goes back to the equilibrium or preferred state. The former property of the complex systems is referred to as leverage, and the latter is called as the dampening behavior.

Self-transcendence

A complex system can transcend itself through evolution and adaptation. It means that the current entity is emerged from an old version of itself, however, it can be distinct from its previous identity.

Complex systems reproduce and regenerate themselves but these regeneration and reproduction are absolutely different from replication.

Emergence

I have already written an article about the definition of the emergence. So we don’t need to discuss it here again.

The whole story can be summarized in the following description:

 A complex system exhibits higher orders behaviors that cannot be derived from the aggregation of the behavior of the individual agents and the principal elements. 

This so-called spontaneous behavior is absolutely different from behavior of the components and is not intended – or understood – by the components.

It would be helpful if you could take a look at the resulting features and behaviors related to the emergence phenomenon.

Policy Resistance

A higher-order complex system intends to preserve itself and its structure. This is a well-known behavior which we call it as the need for survival in humans and other living entities.

It’s very important to consider this behavior as an emerging property of a complex system. Many of the superstitious ideas about the humans, dualistic models of the world and human-centered understanding of the universe are nurtured by the people who were not able to understand this feature as an emerged property and considered it as a deliberately and externally infused feature in the system.

Policy resistance is just one the manifestations of the autonomy: This bias toward status-quo is the reason behind failures of the obvious and simple approaches to the systems. It’s a popular statement between systems analysts that many obvious solutions to problems fail to improve the situation or even worsen it.

This characteristic is sometimes referred to as the counterintuitiveness of the complex systems.

The post Behavioral Characteristics of the Complex Systems appeared first on webmindset.

The above story could be considered as a fantasy. But whoever knows the idea behind the complexity and the complex systems would confirm it as a plausible scenario.

Human understanding of the world can be divided into three distinct ages:

Mythologic World or Primitive Dualistic View

The mythological view of the world seems to be started with the appearance of Homo Sapiens. The Olympian Gods and Greek mythology are the best evolved and excellent examples of this view.

Here we face with two parallel and separate worlds, communicating with each other, but mostly from the divine world downward.

The whole world was ruled by the other world that was full of conflicts and wars between the Gods and Goddesses who were trying to satisfy their human desires projected by humans onto them.

I’d like to call it the dualistic view as the most people felt that their world is continually interacting with another world ruling them and moving them from the past to the future.

The Mystic World or Evolved Dualistic View

Here we are again faced with a dualistic view. But it’s evolved and transcended into a new level.

New we have a visible physical world with an invisible spirit that brings it to life.  This spirit in infused in the material and the material becomes a living entity.

So we see plants and animals with physical bodies and spirits and stones and many [other solid materials as dead objects. However, there is a broad range of speculations about the reality of this dualism.

From more mechanical views dividing the world between living entities and non-living entities to the more mystical views considering walls and stones as living things.

Why did we need to see the world through such a complicated lens? It helped us to describe the non-predictable part of the environment.

Any observer of any complex system who is not able to explain and predict its behavior will be tempted to adopt a dualistic view to justify the unpredictability of the object and autonomy of a subject.

 The complex and realistic view

Here we must distinguish between complicated systems and complex systems.

The former refers to a system that is complicated by design, and the latter refers to many simply designed components interacting with each other and showing a complex behavior.

So a complicated system has both a hard-to-understand logic and a hard-to-predict behavior, but a complex system has an easy-to-understand logic that sometimes leads to hard-to-predict behaviors.

Here the autonomy of a system finds a new meaning: our inability to predict its behavior.  It means that the autonomy is not a feature of the subjects, but a quality of the relationship between the observer and the objects. 

Complex systems and the complexity science is developed for helping us to develop and evolve and nurture this relationship. It will help us to adapt ourselves to the environment better than before and to push the whole world – including ourselves – to the next stages of the transcendence.

The post Why we need to study the complexity and the complex systems appeared first on webmindset.

What I have done is limited to reading a couple of books and software implementation of a few low-order complex systems. However, I’ve always been interested in coaching an informal study group on complexity and emergence and as I’ve never done it and might never do it, decided to publish the supposed-to-be-written lecture notes in such sessions.

Here you can find the title of these topics, and I will provide further details about each of them in the future articles.

Lecture Notes on Complexity, Emergence, and Complex systems

• Why we need to study the complexity and the complex systems
• Complex systems approach to understanding the world: A Brief History
  • Thomas Hobbes and the emergence concept
• What is a complex system (When a system is not simple anymore)
• Definition of a complex system
  • Complexity as a predictive theory
• Behavioral Characteristics of the complex systems (features like emergence and policy resistance)
• Structural Properties of complex systems
• Examples of complex systems
• Financial market as a complex system
• Human body as a complex system
• Brain as a complex system
• Different levels of complexity
• Complex systems in organizations
• Books about complex systems and complexity theory
• Modeling complex systems
  • John Conway and Game of Life
• Complex systems engineering & Complex systems architecture
• Complex systems design
• Data scientists and complex systems management
• Job opportunities and career path for a complex systems analyst
• Complex systems ecology
• Complex adaptive systems (Definition + Characteristics)
• Examples of complex adaptive systems
• Human behavior as manifestations of a complex adaptive system
• Human society as a complex adaptive system
• Complex systems in nature
  • Termite community as a robust complex system
• The whole world as a complex adaptive system: being vs. becoming
• Future of complexity theory

The post Lecture Notes on Emergence and Complex Systems appeared first on webmindset.

John Horton Conway, a British mathematician, developed a very simple algorithm in the late 70s which got popular among computer programmers and mathematicians. The algorithm was called Game of Life.

Although it’s not so clear that why the word game is used in the title, but using the word life in the name of the game shows what he meant from developing this amazing algorithm.

Here’s a very simple description of the algorithm:

Let’s suppose that you have an infinite grid which each cell can be in two different possible states (you can call them 0/1 or on/off or whatever you like).

The grid can also be finite but closed. It means you can consider the leftmost cell as the neighbour of the rightmost cell in the same row and make the same assumption for the cells in the highest and lowest line of the grid.

You can fill the grid with some initial configuration. I have done it already and you can see my grid below:

John Conway suggests four different states for each cell:

State I – Loneliness

In this state, an active cell has zero or one active neighbour. Such an active (or live) cell will die in the next stage.

State II – Steady state

In this state, an active cell has two or three active neighbours. Nothing happens and the cell remains active (live) for the next stage.

State III – Birth

In this state, a dead cell, has exactly three active neighbours. Such a cell will become active (live) in the next stage.

State IV- Death

This state can be considered as a kind of overpopulation. If a cell has four or more active neighbours, it will die in the next stage.

I have shown one sample of each stage in the above picture.

If you run the above algorithm on a simple initial setting, you will be amazed with the complex behaviors which appear there in the grid:

Many people have made different implementations of the game (you can check this one). Also, here you can find a nice lexicon about many different species developed in the game of life.

Besides all other applications of the game of life, there’s a very clear message in this game: in order to see a complex behavior, rules shall not be necessarily complex too. Even very simple rules can lead to very complex structures and behaviors if there be enough time for evolution and growth.

The post John Conway and The Game of Life appeared first on webmindset.

Even Aristotle in his classic book Metaphysics has some clear notions of the emergence concept:

As that which is compounded out of something so that the whole is one – not like a heap but like a syllable – the syllable is not its elements, ba is not the same as b and a, nor is flesh fire and earth…

The syllable, no longer exist, but the elements of the syllable exist and so do fire and earth.

(you can download the book from here)

However for anyone interested in both classic books and the concept of emergence, nothing would be more interesting and engaging than Leviathan. I’ve bought the book couple of years ago and left it just after reading the first pages. Curiosity as a driving force was not enough to push me for reading more than a few pages.

A couple of days ago, I saw the book again and after reading a few passages, couldn’t put down the book before finishing the last page.

The reason was not my interest in political philosophy, as it’s still my least preferred topic. The clear image of the emergence concept in Hobbes’ mind made me read the book.

It’s amazing that an author had such a vivid image of the concept and it’s clearly stated in his book published in 1561. Hobbes approves a mechanistic view of the world but considers the whole system so complicated that the total behavior can’t be clearly described by the behavior of the components.

Sure I’m not going to write a review or even a summary of a book categorized under title of the political philosophy, but I’ve decided to quote a few sentences of the book which I have found inspiring (You can read the whole book here):

Nature… is by the art of man, as in many other things, so in this also imitated, that it can make an Artificial Animal.

.

For seeing life is but a motion of Limbs, the begining whereof is in some principall part within; why may we not say, that all Automata (Engines that move themselves by springs and wheeles as doth a watch) have an artificiall life?

.

Art goes yet further, imitating that Rationall and most excellent worke of Nature, Man.

.

For by Art is created that great LEVIATHAN… which is but an Artificiall Man; though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended;

.

and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; The Magistrates, and other Officers of Judicature and Execution, artificiall Joynts; Reward and Punishment…are the Nerves, that do the same in the Body Naturall;

.

The Wealth and Riches of all the particular members, are the Strength…Counsellors, by whom all things needfull for it to know, are suggested unto it, are the Memory; Equity and Lawes, an artificiall Reason and Will; Concord, Health; Sedition, Sicknesse; and Civill War, Death. Lastly, the Pacts and Covenants, by which the parts of this Body Politique were at first made, set together, and united, resemble that Fiat, or the Let Us Make Man, pronounced by God in the Creation.

.

Much memory, or memory of many things, is called Experience [a collection of components makes a whole new entity].

.

But whatsoever is the object of any mans Appetite or Desire; that is it, which he for his part calleth Good: And the object of his Hate, and Aversion, evill; And of his contempt, Vile, and Inconsiderable. For these words of Good, evill, and Contemptible, are ever used with relation to the person that useth them: There being nothing simply and absolutely so; nor any common Rule of Good and evill, to be taken from the nature of the objects themselves; but from the Person of the man

Since four centuries ago, the time has changed and we have – or believe to have – a much deeper and wider view of the world. But still it’s joyful to read thoughts of a man who has been far ahead of his age. Believing that we are all parts of nature and so we have no way to do anything un-natural. Believing that the humans as the components of the whole society called Leviathan have not any understanding of the big beast although they have made it by themselves and the most amazing: A man who has a mechanistic view of the world, understands the concept of the soul as an emerging property of the body and applies the same concept to the sovereign, the soul he considers for the society.

Reading the whole book invites us to re-think and re-evaluate our knowledge and wisdom. Seems that we have not gone so much further. Just coining new terms for the old thoughts.

The post Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan and the emergence concept appeared first on webmindset.

In my approach to the living entities and the articles about living things and cellular organization and predictability and the living things, complexity was considered as the most important aspect of a living entity usually associated with existence of some kind of living spirit by primitive cultures.

My introduction to the concept of emergence and coining of the term inferiomorphism has some roots in my mindset based on the complexity of the systems.

So it might be a good time to bring up the complexity concept seriously and discuss it as clear as possible. I would start with the definition of a complex system and will elaborate on the technical terms in future articles.

Sure my definition, is not the most comprehensive or accurate one. But would be sufficient for a preliminary introduction. In future, we will study each of the following terms in more details.

So let me introduce a very simplified and basic definition of a complex system:

A complex system is a collection (or population) of many different entities with the specific properties and basic behaviors interacting with each other as well as the environment. When the population of the entities grows enough, there would be hard for the observer to predict the behavior of the whole system, even assuming that we know all the basic properties and behavioral rules of the entities. At this stage we have no pre-assumption about autonomy of the entities as we will see that the autonomy is a label for the complex systems beyond our full understanding.

Having the above-mentioned definition in mind, every society can be considered as a complex system made of humans.

Every human can be considered as a complex system made of organs.

Every organ can be considered as a complex system made of cells.

Every solid or liquid material can be considered as a complex system made of molecules and atoms.

In other words, with this approach, biology is nothing more than the behavioral study of a complex chemical system.

In the same way, psychology is nothing more than the behavioral study of a complex biological system.

And sociology is nothing more than the behavioral study of a complex psychological system.

The same framework can be applied to the entities with higher or lower levels of complexity. This is the reason that the complexity theory, accepting our ontological and epistemological limitations, can be considered as a theory of everything.

You can consider the complex systems somewhere in the middle of the chaotic systems and the mechanical ones. In a chaotic system, any small disturbance can lead to a major disruption and the system can not be considered as stable or even as an integrated entity. In a mechanical system, on the other hand, everything is predictable and response of the system to the external stimuli can be predicted with an acceptable precision.

Most of the words I used in the last sentences are inaccurate ones. So in the future articles we will try to define them more clearly. It may take some time, but it’s worth the effort.

The post Definition: What is a complex system? appeared first on webmindset.