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.

Here’s a list of books I found helpful in learning more about the basics of complexity and complex systems. I hope it helps you too:

Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos

The book written by Mitchell Wardrop provides an honest account of the founding of Santa Fe institute. One of the leading institutions with a major contribution in the development of the complexity theory.

Although the book is published on 1992, still it’s one of the best books to start with if you are going to study the field systematically.

Emergence: From chaos to order

This book is written by John Holland. One of the pioneers of the artificial intelligence and genetic algorithms. The book content is centered around life, mind and organizations. Three of the most important emerged entities in the history of evolution.

Considering the publishing date (1996), he has done a valuable effort to introduce the concept of emergence and to show us the mechanism by which complex behaviors are emerged from the repeated application of a few simple rules.

Here‘s a brief review of the book published by MIT.

Complexity: A guided tour

If you have time for reading just one book in the field of complexity, Melanie Mitchell’s guided tour would be the best choice. A fine blend of computer science, biology and information theory referring to a wide variety of cases from metabolism and genetic algorithm to the immune system and ant colonies.

You will love the book if you remember that you are invited to a guided tour and not to an official organised academic lecture on complex systems and complexity theory.

At home in the universe: The search for laws of self-organizing and complexity

Stuart Kauffman’s book on the complexity is not an easy read, but it’s one of the most vivid pictures drawn about the origins of life.

You may like to take a look at a very short summary of the book provided by the Stanford university.

Linked: How everything is connected to everything else

And as the last item on the first part of my list, if you are looking for a book to read in bed before sleeping with some flavors of complexity and emergence, Linked is one the best choices available.

The simplified non-mathematical yet precise and scientific descriptions of the networks and their emerging characteristic, makes it a good choice for an exciting tour to the world of complexity.

You will find many different examples from the AIDS proliferation to the internet traffic. You will not regret reading it.

The post Books on complexity theory and complex systems – Part I 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.

Scientists observe the world. Develop theories based on their observations. Validate their theories using existing data and finally, use these theories to predict the future.

The science without the power of prediction is history at best and story at worst. Just suppose someone tells you that all the waters on the earth were boiled at 100 C till now, but we know nothing about the future!

In this sense, something like statistics would not be part of the science as it describes what happened and predicts the future just with the ceteris paribus assumption. Such an assumption will not hold true for most of the complex systems.

Statistics can be considered as a tool helping scientists to compare theories with each other to see which one had a better prediction power. That’s all.

Actually most of the spiritual and metaphysical descriptions of the world are descriptions of the past rather than predictions of the future. They are able to vividly and firmly describe the reason behind every past event but have almost no power in predicting what will happen in the future.

As one the most complicated species ever existed on the planet, seems that our next aim shall be developing a mindset primed for predicting the future instead of merely describing the past.

Sure most of us are interested in future. The long time existence of fortunetellers from Oracle of the Delphi up to today’s palmists and phrenologists proves that there has been kind of inclination toward predicting the future. But it’s a great difference between the people with the predictive mindset and the ones with descriptive mindset who believe they are able to predict the future.

One of the best business cases would be market researchers. Most of them just provide us with the description of the current preferences and behaviors of the customers based on some statistical reports and convince us that these reports are the most reliable roadmap to the future. Sure if nothing radical happens, this kind of analysis can be valid. But why we need such an analysis if there’s nothing radical going to happen?

Sure there’s not a clear dividing line between descriptive models and predictive ones, but it’s not so hard to compare them from this aspect. The predictability power of the models also depends on the subject of the study. Sure physics can claim a more power of predictability in comparison to the psychology. As the later on studies a more complex subject.

In general I believe that for thousands of years, most of the models proposed by humans for the complex systems such as the universe, the nature, the weather, the society and themselves, has been descriptive in some sense and the future belongs to the models which are aiming at the prediction of the behaviors of these complex systems.

The post Description vs. Prediction: Predictive Theories and Descriptive Stories appeared first on webmindset.

Now it’s the time to talk about the concept of emergence with more examples and look for a practical definition of it.

Imitating Michael Porter’s style, let me start with this question: What Emergence Is Not? Or let’s say in other words: how would we see the world if we don’t use the emergence approach:

Centralized approach to the systems

The centralized approach to the world has been popular since centuries ago:

• The whole world has to have a center and sure it was earth.
• The whole human body has to have a commanding center. In the old times, the heart was supposed to be this center and then the brain took this central position.
•  The whole society has a command center. It may be a king in the autocratic societies and the parliament in the democratic ones. But there has to be a center.

The centralized approach has been the governing paradigm for a long time and one of the hardest challenges in understanding of emergence is unlearning this old-fashioned concept.

Reductionistic approach to the systems

Every system can be divided into smaller parts and every part can be studied separately in order to understand the system as a whole.

• To know a watch, break it into the parts.
• To know an organization, take a look at its chart and visit every department.
• To know the human body, try to know the organs and the cells.

Peter Senge states in his highly recommended book The Fifth Discipline, by dividing a cow in two parts you would not have two calves. What lies there would be nothing more than a dead cow. The same metaphor holds true for all the systems. The system as a whole is more than the sum of its parts and this fact is not acknowledged by the reductionist approach.

I have coined the term inferiomorphism to describe misleading results of this mindset.

The objective assumption of the subjective system characteristics

The mass of a brick seems an objective measure. Also the height of a human.  Also the RPM of an engine. But what’s your opinion about being alive? or being autonomous? Can I talk about a living state and a non-living state as clear as the solid/liquid state? Is it correct to consider it as a measurable boolean parameter? Can I talk about the meaning of living independent of the observer? Can I define these characteristics based on the characteristics of the parts?

Sure there are objective characteristics in any system and there are subjective ones too. But the people who are not equipped with the emergence approach are in danger of assuming the subjective characteristics as objective ones. I have mentioned some simple examples about this point in my article titled predictability and the meaning of living. But sure we will talk about it with more details in future.

Understanding the emergence concept will lead us to a new world. The world in which most of the currently accepted facts will not be anything more than misleading assumptions.

We will talk about this concept in future articles.

The post Basic Concepts: Looking for a practical definition of emergence appeared first on webmindset.

In the above photo, you can see various structures made by termites. Actually these are the cities they live in. Every single colony can have millions of members. Considering the structure, scientists believe that the complexity level of these colonies is close to a mid-size city.

But before talking more about termites, would be better to make a definition of the term eusocial insects and eusociality.

Any insect species that are living together can be called social insects. But the term eusociality (originally coined by Suzanne Batra) means the most complicated social system among insects recognised by three basic characteristics:

• Conducting cooperative care of young. Even when are not directly their offspring.
•  A clear division of labor
• Overlapping of generations, helping the experience to be transferred from the olds to the youngs.

There are various eusocial insect species which ants, bees and termites are most studied ones. But termites are more interesting as some of them build their cities not under the ground but over the ground just like our skyscrapers.

Living for about 300 million years on the earth, although they have been breakfast of dinosaurs, their robust society structure gave them the chance to see their extinction and even chances are high that they see extinction of human species. Currently, the total weight of the termites is more than the total weight of the humans on the planet. Every single termite lives for several years. But termite colony lives for even more than one century.

So if we consider survival as the most important desire of all the species (including humans) seems that termites have been more intelligent to find a practical solution for this quest.

Still considering an individual termite, it has one of the simplest minds ever existed on earth. But considering the termite society, there’s an emerged mind more complicated and more productive than human mind. No centralized government. Not any sign of democracy. Not any means of complicated communication tools or message broadcasting services. But making the best decisions:

• Where to build the city?
• When to leave the city?
• How to design the structure of the streets and homes?
• When help the others and when leave them to die in favor of the society?

Yes. We can be proud that we are more conscious than termites. But, to be honest, there’s no proof for that. As the ability to speak is not a proof of conscientiousness. and tool making is not a proof of intelligence if it can not help our society to live longer. Sure if aliens with no human bias come to the earth and observe us for a long period of time they will vote for termites as a more powerful and adaptable entity.

How does it happen? With a very clear and simple structure. They have three different categories with different duties in the society called castes:

• Soldier termites (usually blind and without a developed eye) with strength and armor prepared to defend society against ant attack. They are not even able to feed themselves. They are fed by worker ants through their mouth or anus.
• Worker termites responsible for food storage, nest maintenance and digestion of cellulose for the others.
• Reproductive termites specialized in egg laying. A mature queen may produce 20000 to 30000 eggs a day.

Termite society is the best demonstration of the emergence concept. Simple minded individuals (we call them agents) do a very simple duty (we call it task or interaction) for the society (we call it a system) and the new characteristics emerge. The ones who has no similarity to the basic characteristics of agents.

The most complicated emergence case we ever recognized is the human brain. Individual neurons with simple characteristics combined together and a complicated system emerged which we call it brain.

To be more precise, a complicated system is emerged and called itself brain. As the brain is the only existing entity who named itself.

In future articles, I will try to show you that the brains are not the most complicated emergent system anymore. We have more complicated living digital entities which are not recognised as most intelligent and adaptable living entities of the world yet!

The post Introductory Case: Life of termites as eusocial insects appeared first on webmindset.

Yes, we have the ability to talk. We are able to communicate with words. We are one of the few species who are able to transfer what they have learned to the next generation via something beyond genes and genetics. We are one of the most powerful and creative tool-maker animals ever existed. But does it mean that we are the most successful inhabitant on the planet earth?

To find the most successful species, it’s necessary to define success. May we could call ourselves one of the most complex ones, but complexity is not an advantage on its own.

Survival can be considered as one of the greatest success criteria. The whole concept of complexity is grown around survival. Even if we don’t know the question behind the creation, the answer is crystal clear: We leave the playground in favor of more professional players!

Would not be hard to guess that humans are not necessarily the last surviving entity on the earth. There are many other species with more chance. Ants are one of them.

A history of living for more than 300 million years on the earth and diversification into more than 10000 species are just two indicators showing their success on the planet. Considering they are more resistant than humans on bearing hostile and harsh environmental conditions, it can make their survival possible even after our extinction.

From the ant’s point of view with more than 300 million years of life, appearance and extinction of humans within hundred thousands of years is not anything longer than a thunder sound: loud and frightening but short!

 What have helped them to be one the most successful species as we know they have one of the simplest brains ever known to us? Something we can call the social brain.

Ants and termites and similar insects are eusocial. They live together and despite the fact that every single ant has a very simple mind, the ant society has a complicated adaptive social mind. Every ant works like a neuron and every communication between ants works like a synaptic connection.

Here lies the main concept behind emergence:

A process whereby larger entities, patterns, and regularities arise through interactions among smaller or simpler entities that themselves do not exhibit that properties.

A single ant is not as successful as an individual human. But the ant society is clearly more successful and more adaptable than the human society with a much brighter future on the planet.

The concept of emergence has a tight connection to the concept of living and predictability. Generally, most of the emerged behaviors of the systems are more complex and less predictable than the behavior of their individual components. And here’s the starting point of the delusion. where we started to put tags on the emergent characteristics which we could not analyze. Living, spirit and intuition, to name a few.

Before any further discussion, would be helpful if you take a look to the following articles:

Life of termites as eusocial insects

predictability and the living things.

The post Basic Concepts: An introduction to the concept of emergence appeared first on webmindset.