My chapter in the “Ant Colony Optimization” book is just published.

Ant Colony Optimization

The Ant Colony Optimization is an optimization technique inspired by ant colony behavior while searching for food.

Social insects are distributed systems that demonstrate collective intelligence and carry out complex tasks, having individuals with very simple and rudimentary cognitive abilities. In many cases, these tasks exceed the capabilities of a single individual. For instance, ant colonies are able to find the shortest path to food and this is far from the capability of each ant. This collective intelligence emerges by simple processes in the colony and indirect communication among the ants and this happens while ants, individuals of this colony, have so limited cognitive abilities. This is just like having intelligence emerged from very simple rules and interactions.

Read more here

Computational theory of mind defines an agenda for psychology and it is studying various forms of mental representations and its relevant procedures. There is a hypothesis in cognitive science which claims thinking can be understood in terms of representational structures and the procedures that operate on those structures. A metaphor

Mental Representation

for this is data structure and algorithm in computer science. Programming languages include various data structures such as strings, numbers and lists and algorithms are some procedures that are operated on different sort of structures. Similarly, mental representation is analogous to data structure and computational procedures of mind are similar to algorithms.

Plato stated human being is imprisoned in a cave and what we perceive of the world are formed by the shadows reflected on the wall of the cave. Mental representation can be considered as the shadow and the possible information that can be extracted from it, is what we can know about world.

Studying the mental representation is so vital, since the forms of representation can determine what sort of

information can be inferred from it. Besides evolutionary epistemology can assist us perceive which representations had selective advantages and have managed to survive. The form of representation, settles the viability, efficacy and the capacity of carrying information and capability of allowing various processes to be operated on the information. For instance, system of numbers are a form of external representations and roman numbers have not survived because basic arithmetic operations like addition or multiplication are so difficult or almost impossible in this numeric system. This example implies that different representation forms of numbers requires different procedures for

carrying out arithmetic operations and consequently the representation and the procedures that it enables could bias the trajectory of mathematics. Consequently, specific mind representations can eventuate in specific knowledge and perception of world and if we had different structure of mentalrepresentation and procedures, we would grasp different perception of world, human, mind and mental representation itself.

In computational mind theory, mind is considered as a kind of computation, which along with information resides in patterns of data that are independent of the physical medium that carries them. For instance in telephone systems, a message turns to air pressure, voltages in silicon, light in fiber optic and etc but the content of the message is

Mind-body problem

unchanged and independent of the medium. In computational mind theory, mind is a system of organs of computation designed by natural selection to solve the kinds of problems our ancestors faced in their foraging way of life. Hence, the brain processes information and thinking is a kind of computation.

The mind-body problem, which argues how mind interacts with matter (body), has been a controversial debate for generations. This debate is about the question that how intangible beliefs, desires, images, plans and goals reflect the world, move our bodies and even shape the world. How the colorless, odorless & tasteless wanting & knowing causes physical events of body. According to Descartes, mind and matter are made of different stuffs that interact in a part of brain called pineal gland. However, in computational theory of mind, another approach is opted. In this theory, beliefs & desires are information, incarnated as configurations of symbols and the symbols are the physical states of bits of matter like chips in a computer or neurons in the brain. Computation science has decoded many of the intangible mental terms. Beliefs are inscriptions in memory, desires are goal inscriptions, thinking is computation, perceptions are inscriptions triggered by senses, trying is executing operations triggered by a goal.

Of course studying the mind without considering its medium (brain) is irrelevant. Circuits made of neurons cannot do exactly same things as circuits of silicon.

For instance, silicon is faster than neuron but a neural circuit can match a larger pattern faster. However, at the same time studying the brain is not enough to understand mind.

In computational mind theory, mind is a form of computation but computer can not be a proper metaphor of mind.

• Computers are serial doing one thing at a time, brains are parallel doing millions of things at a time
• Computers are fast, brain is slow
• Computer parts are reliable, brain parts are noisy
• Computers have limited no of connections, brain has trillions of

To explain how birds fly we use the principles of lift, drag, and fluid mechanics that also explain how the airplanes fly. Airplane is not a metaphor of the bird but same rules and principles are applicable in both.

Reference: How the mind works, Steven Pinker

Myth is one of the known mechanisms to equip human with meaning, without providing abstract and conceptual schemes. The mythic mind talks about life by simply painting what life looks like in numerous situations. For instance, direction for a mythic mind is provided by landmarks and not abstract longitude & latitude in GPS. Hence, no thematic or conceptual summary of myth is possible, and the proper question to ask of a myth is not “what does it mean?” but “what does happen next and how does it end?” just like films.

Myth has sacred roots, which is ontologically different from the basis of our current profane world. Sacred is the reality that does not belong to our world and it is revealed and manifested in the objects and events of the world. Therefore what we see is what we see and at the same time, manifestation of something else. Consequently, any object can represent something else like bread and wine, which can represent body and blood of Christ. Sacred realm is universal and eternal, impersonal, timeless, transcendent, old and typical. On the other hand, the profane world is particular, personal, time bounded, changing, new and creative. Since sacred is something fixed and enduring in the midst of universal flux and ever-changing world, the reality of day-to-day life becomes secondary to the eternal and stable reality of the sacred.

Questions such as what makes life worthwhile cannot be asked while one lives mythically. The abstract questions of meaning never arises inside the myth and just a compelling story is narrated which is neither an allegory nor a philosophy, but an identification. The fundamental function of myth is identification and having meaningful or deep actions is not important. The identification happens regularly even in the modern life. For instance identifying with a hero, a magician, a warrior or a scholar mythic character is so common. Christians also are admonished to just imitate Christ and not analyze the facts.

Hence myth provides meaning but not by offering abstract explanations. It narrates stories with sacred essence and mythical minds, which have faith and emotional bond with mythic characters, identify themselves with the myth and become part of the story.

The Latin word complexux means entwined and twisted together. So complexity is always jointed with several components. There is a basic duality between parts which are at the same time distinct and connected. More parts and connections lead to more complexity.

Complexity

The aspects of distinction and connection, determines two dimensions characterizing complexity. Distinction corresponds to variety and the fact that different parts behave differently. Connection corresponds to constraints and to the fact that different parts are not independent and the knowledge about one part, allows determination of features of the other parts. Distinction leads in the limit to disorder, chaos or entropy (Like gas which the position of every part is completely independent of the position of others). Connection leads in the limit to order and negentropy. (Like in a perfect crystal where the positions of the molecules are completed determined by positions of the neighboring molecules).

Complexity can only exist if both aspects are present, neither perfect disorder nor perfect order. Because disorder can be described statistically through the rule of large numbers and order is described by traditional deterministic methods. The complexity appears when there is something between order and disorder, or using a fashionable expression on the edge of chaos.

The simplest way to model order is through the concept of symmetry, which means “invariance of a pattern under a group of transformations”. In symmetric patterns, one part of the pattern (seed) is sufficient to reconstruct the whole. It is interesting to note that maximal disorder too is characterized by symmetry, not of the actual positions of the components, but of the probabilities of being in a certain position.

So complexity can be characterized by lack of symmetry or symmetry breaking which leads to this fact that no part or aspect of a complex entity can provide sufficient information to actually or statistically predict the properties of the other parts. This is the reason for difficulties of modeling complex systems. It is said that definition of complexity depends on the level of representation or scale. What seems complex in one representation may seem ordered or disordered in different scales. Scale is just another dimension, characterizing space or time ( Havel, 1995). Havel calls a system scale-thin if its distinguishable structure extends only over one or a few scales. A fractal or self-similar shapes has infinite scale expansion. We may conclude that complexity increases when the variety (distinction) and dependency (connection) of parts or aspects increase in several dimensions. These dimensions include

• Geometrical structure
• Dimension of time or dynamics
• Dimension of temporal or dynamical scale

We can call increase of variety, differentiation and strength of connection, integration. The complexity produced by differentiation and integration in the geometric dimension may be called structured, in the temporal dimension functional in the spatial dimension structural hierarchical and in the temporal scale dimension functional hierarchical.

Different ways to explain human nature may be categorized in two major approaches. One is the evolutionary approach and the other is SSSM which stands for Standard Social Science Model and it is the method mostly utilized in psychology, sociology, cultural anthropology and human sciences. Nature and nurture are also two so called terms used to explain human mind or behavior. “Nature” represents the evolutionary history which leads to innate structures in human. “Nurture” refers to the cultural

Charles Darwin

history and learning capability of human and it focuses mostly on the impact of environment. In explaining the origins of mind also, some scientists assume nature has the major impact since the structure of the brain drives and directs the computational mind but another group claims environment, society and culture plus great learning and conditioning capability of humans are the major factors

which can explain mind. SSSM is in fact a “nurture” approach whereas evolutionary approach is characterized by nature-nurture since it argues that a full explanation of a physical or behavioral trait requires both evolutionary explanations (nature) and environmental explanations (nurture) both together. Therefore the debate between these two approaches is not about nature versus nurture, but nature-nurture versus nurture.

In SSSM human nature is viewed as a blank slate according to John Locke, the 17th century philosopher. An example of SSSM approach and focusing on nurture is observed in Marxism which claims humans are not innately greedy, but the capitalism makes them greedy. In the perspective of SSSM people are not slave of their genes, but they are dependent on their environment, cultural history and social construction. In this way changing the environment resolves the problems of human.
Another substantial instance of SSSM approach was appeared in behaviorism in psychology. Behaviorism claimed human behavior is the ultimate result of conditioning to various stimulus considering environment responsible for human behavior. Meanwhile another wave in anthropology called cultural relativism reinforced SSSM approach by stating mannerisms like the ways of showing anger, joy and grief are variant in different cultures and what is considered normal in a society may be considered abnormal in other societies, hence morality also was assumed to be in fact socially approved habits.

Although evolution theory has been present since Darwin but rarely it was taken seriously in other disciplines outside biology and SSSM approach was the dominant one. Later some findings in different disciplines impacted SSSM such as Noam Chomsky’s theory of universal grammar in linguistics (The Chomsky Website). He claimed language acquisition, contrary to behaviorism, is not a simple stimulus-response conditioning. Chomsky stated that there is a universal grammar characteristic which is hard-wired into our brains and this claim weakened the blank slate view of human nature. Chomsky’s theory welcomed the computational models of mind (cognitive science and AI) and gradually evolutionary approach influenced psychology and sociology in terms of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

Today it is known that evolution has been one of the greatest human findings and as Dobzhansky states “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”. Modern biology without evolution is not possible since every new discovery in this field fits perfectly within the evolutionary framework and evidences of evolution are quite various such as transitional patterns found in fossils, the geographical distribution of plants and animals, their anatomical relationships, the findings about DNA , mutation and evolution of viruses and evolutionary resistance of bacteria to antibiotics (Refer to “Evolution and the big questions”).

In fact SSSM is not wrong, but it is incomplete to explain human nature. Impact of environment is completely evident and it is supported as well by evolutionary approach (nature-nurture) but the problem of SSSM is that it tends to create a kind of resistance or denial to the fact that humans are biological species, and it prefers to flee from genes slavery.

If you consider any cause for the behavior then free will may be undermined. If the behavior be considered as a result

Steven Pinker

of neurons activities then where we can fit the free will. If it is result of upbringing and culture again how we can explain free will? Or more precisely, if we consider behavior as a complex interaction of our genes, brains, upbringing, stimuli, social experience and learning, how we can hold people responsible for their behavior. It seems finding any cause for behavior can lead to annihilation of free will; meanwhile it is ultimate goal of science to find causes.

So how free will can be possible? When there is a mysterious cause for behavior? Or when there is a random or chaotic cause? But still they are a kind of cause.

Steven Pinker investigates this concept quite interestingly. He explains that science and ethics are two distinct self-contained systems utilized to explain human behavior. In science people are considered as material objects following scientific processes and rules. In ethics people are sentient and rational agents with free will in which the moral value of the behavior is measured according to its inherent nature or its consequences. He adds “Free will is an idealization of human beings that makes the ethics game playable. Euclidean geometry requires idealizations like infinite straight lines and perfect circles and its deductions are sound & useful even though the world does not really have infinite straight lines. The world is close enough to the idealization of free will that moral theory can meaningfully be applied to it.”

What is the difference between belief and faith? We keep a belief without being sure of its validity which is different from knowing something. When we know, it implies we are certain about its validity, consequently we use knowing for scientific facts. But, when we believe we are settling between pure skepticism and knowledge. Therefore, people seldom tell they know god exists instead they express that they believe in god which implies uncertainty and suspended validity.

On the other hand, faith elevates the belief to a religious level and it destroys the critical distance. Having faith, we experience the world through that and consequently questioning its validity becomes not applicable and impossible. Faith creates emotional bond and affects our living dynamics whereas our emotional identification and imaginative reenactment becomes biased by the faith. A true Muslim doesn’t believe Mohammad is the prophet of god, he just perceives him as the prophet and in this way he just expresses the facts as he sees them as if the separation between subject and object is annihilated. Therefore as it is evident, faith is the house of certainty which no doubt can get in.

Hence, considering above definitions and illustrations, critical thinking doesn’t happen for faiths. On the other hand the modernism is characterized by its endless criticism of everything such as criticism of the mind that criticizes, or even criticism of criticism. Then criticism of everything as fundamental characteristic of modernism can imply that modernism is accompanied by pale faiths which also provoke the dreadful guest who knocks the door, as Nietzsche describes nihilism.

The goal of our genes is self-spreading. We are somehow the product of our genes. Are our goals completely inline with our genes goal? Are our goals somehow sub-goals of our genes goal?
To what extent we care about spreading genes? Are all human social systems, culture, or meaning-construction systems like religion and philosophies implicitly serving human gene spreading? So why in more industrialized countries there is negative rate of population growth? Why this many birth-control methods? Is industry and modernism the enemy of evolution? Religion can equip you with meaning and that can make you more robust and sustainable. But also it can force you devote your life. So is religion congruent with the purpose of evolution or not? What about ethics? Is ethics an organized entity to control our behavior to finally increase gene distribution? Then why rape is unethical since it does that explicitly?
Perhaps these questions mix two different distinct levels of explanation for biological purpose and human purpose and different mechanisms are involved in these levels.

Human mind needs order, certainty, explicit explanations and structure to be able to grasp and categorize phenomena of the world and also understand why he exists. The interesting fact is that myth and philosophy fulfill this human need but of course in different ways. Philosophy provides order and stability by illustration of abstract, universal and timeless categories and ideas. Myth also is a response to the same needs not in a conceptual way, but with eternal, universal, impersonal, unchanging and sacred mythic realities, facts and stories. So apparently philosophy and myth has served one need with different approaches. But at a certain point in philosophy history, the machine of order and structure generation stopped and it was by emergence of the phenomenon of Nietzsche. He confronted all philosophical traditions, did dissection on value structures, illustrated dawn of idols and death of god and introduced Nihilism as the process of devaluating of all values and all meanings becoming meaningless. At this point apparently human needs were secondary to seeking the dreadful truth. Nihilism is the excess honesty of mind which doesn’t assimilate and doesn’t buy structured universal values by giving away and suppressing the apprehension of uncertainty and meaninglessness. Myth and philosophy (before Nietzsche) was somehow forming the Promised Land to human to settle, rest, become stable and free of all pains. By demonstration of nihilism in fact a fundamental change is happening, human is migrating from search of a Promised Land and accepts becoming a nomad and tramp. He apprehends the dynamics of meaning and value structures which are destroyed and reconstructed in an endless cycle and in this cycle there is no place to settle.