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.

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.

I have mentioned his name in my list of leading thinkers of the technology. He is one of the few scientists you can indisputably call them a futurist.

The Author of the book Singularity is near, after discussing so many different technological trends in his previous book, here is going to show the roadmap of creating something superior to the human mind.

The most significant challenge Ray Kurzweil faces is trying to reverse engineer the mind.

In the last centuries, philosophers and metaphysic-believers have lost the brain ground in the battle with scientists and have accepted that the brain is part of the biologist’s territory. However, the mind is still considered by them and many other people with biased-scientists as something beyond an embodied cognition.

There are still many people who are not able (or willing) to accept consciousness as an emerging property of a complex system and prefer to consider it as a separate entity infused in the body of the living entities.

Therefore, you may see many objections to the book that are trying to protect their comfort zone even under the scientific cloak.

Here is the table of contents of How to create a mind:

Kurzweil states in the preface of the book that reverse engineering of the mind is the most important project in the universe.

In his book, he tries to apply pattern recognition knowledge to analyzing the brain function. He calls this process as Pattern Recognition Theory of Mind (PRTM).

Here’s the focal point of the criticisms of his book: Whether it’s the most appropriate approach to reverse engineering the mind or Kurzweil tries to see the brain as a nail just because The hammer is the only tool he has in hand?

In my opinion, the book is insightful enough to dismiss these criticisms and justify reading it and thinking about it.  Considering the fact that if we expect that every scientist approaches the problems with the tools he is not equipped with (!), then we are entering the territory of philosophy and metaphysics and all the superstitions which have been around for centuries. 

From Kurzweil’s point of view in How to create a mind, the latest evolved part of the brain (Neocortex) is functioning like a hierarchical pattern recognition system, and this is what distinguishes it from the old reptilian brain.

Here we can have the new definitions of the existing mind-related terms:

• Neocortex: a multilayer perceptron (with multiple layers of neurons) receiving sensory inputs and each layer combines the signals and passes them to the next layer (Part of them which are greater than some threshold value). Assumption: next layers can send back signals and adjust triggering threshold of the previous layers.
• Memory: a list of patterns that can be recalled with specific triggers. This lists of patterns are somehow interpolation of the past and a tool for extrapolating the future.
• Learning: Pattern recognition in different levels of the hierarchy. This model can justify why we are not able to deeply understand multi-layer concept simultaneously.
• Misunderstanding: Trying to transfer patterns stored in my mind to yours or using my pattern classification system to understand your sensory data of stored information.
• Directed Thinking: Aligning the whole pattern recognition system with the current problem on the table.
• Undirected Thinking: Leaving the patterns to interact with each other and probably re-classified to reach to a new pattern. Undirected thinking has a major contribution to the evolution of the mind.

Besides all appraisals and criticisms, how to create a mind is worth reading and thinking. It’s one of the greatest manifests of the transhumanism trying to go further than appealing inflated slogans.

Quotations from introduction of the book – How to create a mind

The post How to create a mind by Ray Kurzweil – Book Review appeared first on webmindset.

The concept of randomness seems obvious at first glance. Random and Randomness are so popular in our daily talks which we never think about their exact definition.

Let me start with a simple question. Which of the following series of the numbers can be called random:

1  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0 1  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0 1  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0  1  0  0

1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1  1

1  0  1  1  1  1  0  1  1  0  1  0  0  0  0  1  0  1  1  1  0  1  1  0  0  0  1  0  1  0  0  0  1  1  0

Most of us consider the third-row as a random series of bits. The second-row doesn’t seem a random serie and the first-row is something in the middle. Not as random as the third-row and not as ordered as the second row. But sure it has a pattern inside. It’s just a ‘1  0  0’ repeated 12 times.

Now let me tell you that all these 3 rows are the result of consecutive tossing a coin. Anyone familiar with the basics of probability knows that if you toss a coin for 36 times all of the above series have exactly the same chance of appearance. Actually the chance is 0.000000000014551915. So they all can be called a random series of numbers somehow.

In theory, it’s understandable but we all feel that there’s a difference between these 3 series. The first and the second series have some pattern, but the third one seems absolutely patternless.

Here we can define two different concepts of randomness: Product Randomness and Process Randomness. As far as I know, this distinction between the product randomness and the process randomness was done by Gregory Chaitin. Although he didn’t use the same names, but sure he distinguishes the two different approaches to the randomness.

So let’s make a brief definition of the both terms:

Product Randomness is an attribute of a series of events with no visible pattern.  So any patternless series of events can be called as a sample of product randomness.

Process Randomness is an attribute of a series of events resulting from a process with two or more products which all have the same probability of happening.

So considering my question at the start of this article, all three rows can be called random if we consider the process definition of randomness, but only the third one can be called random if we consider the product definition of randomness.

Gregory Chaitin has an amazing definition of product randomness: Any series of numbers can be considered as random if there is no shorter way to communicate them with someone else (or with a computer) than copying the whole series of numbers itself.

So in his point of view the second row is not a random row as you can describe it for a computer in this way:

Print ‘1’ for 36 times

Even the first raw is not random because you can write:

Print ‘1  0  0’ for 12 times

But the third one can be considered random as there’s no way to compress it to a shorter message.

But what if our computer understands other commands too? Let’s suppose that our computer understands DecToBin command for converting decimal numbers to binaries.

then all of the three rows are not random anymore (or they are at the equal randomness level):

First row: DecToBin(39268272420)

Second row: DecToBin(68719476735)

Third row: DecToBin(25451802950)

Here Chaitin has a very simple answer: as far you can make it shorter, just do it. when it’s not absolutely possible then you have a random series in hand!

So this is an understandable yet non-measurable definition of product randomness. Anyway, he is a mathematician and for the mathematicians the most important concern is to prove that there exists an answer. To know the actual answer is not the first priority.

But in the real world we need an exactly quantifiable definition. The whole existing world is a series of events. So considering it as a sample of process randomness means that this nice pattern-full world has the same value as any other pattern-less world which could happen.  On the other hand considering the whole world as a result of a process randomness has its own implications and complications.

The most serious challenge in understanding the world is limitation of our brain as it is hardwired to look for pattern and meaning even in pattern-less and meaningless things.

The post Basic Concepts: Definition of Randomness appeared first on webmindset.