Scientific Model of the Brain - From Instinct to Reason: How does the Brain work?

It certainly makes sense to view the brain as the government of the organism. It would then be natural to say, that all important decisions are taken by our (conscious) mind. However, if we analyze a little deeper how the brain works, we will quickly realize, that in this context the word 'decisions' is rather misleading: 

Our mental constructs are nothing but the result of our experience with the environment. As a matter of fact, our mental constructs' raison d'etre is the formation of a model of the world outside, where - in order to optimize our interaction with our environment - our interpretation of how the world works is represented. It is therefore really hard (if not altogether impossible) to conceive anything foreign to everything we have so far been exposed to. For instance, as three-dimensional beings interacting in this world with other three-dimensional structures, it is really hard for us to conceive any four-dimensional shape. Since it is also our daily experience, that choices are always made by some decision-making agent; it is then likewise natural to assume, that this must be exactly what happens in the brain: intuitively, our senses gather information about the environment and elaborate a description of its current state. Once this has been accomplished, it is our consciousness' job to analyze this description and decide on a course of action. Not only does this follow the scheme of everything, that we have previously been exposed to; but it faithfully corresponds to our sheer sense of existence and very perception of life. Indeed, how often to we make remarks such as" "I see...", "I hear...", "I believe...", "I think...", "I like...", "I want...', etc.? We will even make statements such as: "The Egyptians decided to drop the Hieroglyphs System", instead of simply: "eventually other more efficient and practical writing methods became available and, with time, less and less people were taught    how to use hieroglyphs". Certainly, it would sound really strange to hear anybody saying: "the neurons in my brain reckon...". Yet, neuroscientific evidence strongly indicates that the latter reflects much better how our brains actually function. If there is any climactic discovery which any scientist could ever dream to achieve, that is undoubtedly the finding of the neural processes responsible for personal agency. Yet, as hard as the brain has been examined, no evidence has ever been found of any group of neurons playing the role of any decision-making agent. It is not just that there is no evidence of any group of neurons taking decisions based on some description of the current state of the environment; but the sheer scheme of some agent analyzing any such description and making choices accordingly, is not in agreement with anything, that is known about how information is processed in the brain. To begin with, the evidence does not support the notion, according to which any such description of the surroundings is build, by those brain areas responsible for the processing of sensorial information. Eminent Psychology Professor Irving Biederman dedicated his entire career to the search of evidence in supoort of a model along these lines; but, as skilled as he certainly was elaborating his arguments, the data he presented remained far from conclusive. Moreover his 'Geon' (Generalized Cylinders) theory of visual cognition only addressed how human-made objects could be represented; but did not provide an account for natural structures.

Fact of the matter is the scientific evidence favors instead an 'action-oriented'-perception model such as the one proposed by Michael A. Arbib. The idea behind action-oriented perception is that we perceive our environment and the events within it, in terms of our ability to act. In other words, the processing of sensorial information is oriented towards signaling 'affordances' or actions the individual can afford to perform. For instance, the sight of a mug's handle elicits the activation of the offordance to grasp the mug by its handle. Albeit it can eventually get as sophisticated as necessary, the action-oriented model can be seen, in basic terms, as a direct mapping from perception to action.

  After all - if the ultimate purpose of the mind is to optimize our interaction with our environment - the actual question to be resolved is what is the optimal course of action in any given situation. In other words, the real question is not, what is what we want; but how to achieve our ultimate goal in life. Indeed, there is little doubt that, for all of us, the ultimate goal in life is to survive and be happy. Yet, the fact that nobody seems to be able to consistently be happy - not even those, who have all the money in the world to buy everything they want -, indicates that we just do not know, how to achieve happiness. It therefore seems a reasonable approach to come up with a series of subgoals, which we hope, guess and sometimes even reckon will get us a step closer to the wildest of our dreams. In fact, as we consider what may help to get us happy, we begin to realize that, if the pursuit of happiness is so elusive is because the objectives, that we can think of, are usually in conflict one to another. Indeed, in order to survive we undoubtedly need to look after our own interest; however, likewise critical to our happiness is to be loved by the people around us. Now, as much as we may hate it, it is rather unlikely that other people will feel much love for us, if we exclusively care about ourselves and completely disregard everybody else's needs and desires. In general terms, in this really complex world we live in, we often do not know and it is not exactly straightforward to figure out how to accomplish most of our biggest objectives. Clearly, the difficulty does not lie in deciding what we want, but in finding out how to accomplish it.     

Divide-and-Conquer, however, is a general strategy that works particularly well for complex problems. Laying out the different subgoals, which need to be fulfilled, constitute then a course of action to achieve our global aim. Interestingly, any of our goals can be seen as a desired future state. Indeed, the fulfillment of any need or wish is nothing but a desired internal state. Moreover, it then does not seem too complicated to establish a link between an external state of the environment and our desired internal state. For instance, if we want to find some specific person in a crowd of people, spotting that person's face would represent the target external state. Similarly, for a frog looking for some lunch to fill its belly's desires, an exciting external state would certainly be the sighting of some juicy fly in its environs.

One of the main obstacles in brain research is the temptation to resort on incredibly deeply-rooted ideological preconceptions. For instance, if right from the outset we assume there is a soul responsible for our most profound thoughts and ideas, we are left with little else to explain. THe study of animal models is for this reason of even more benefit than what is already normally the case. In fact, - as much as we enjoy thinking that we are so much intellectually superior than any other animal - if we set aside all our prejudices, it is really hard to find any intellectual faculty, that lies beyond the potential of any other animal's brain. Yet, given we do not assume that easily the existence of an animal soul, we are forced to explain those intellectual abilities in some other way. Clearly, if a frog snaps at an unwary fly, which injudiciously chose to fly in its vicinity, the frog is certainly not making a conscious decision, but, surely, it is only reacting instinctively. Definitely, the stupid fly foolishly put itself in the frog's cross hairs, and the latter simply fired accordingly. Even if we consider a more complex scenario, where two flies fall in the frog's field of view (say one fly in the left visual field and the other in the right visual field), the frog will not need to be equipped with any sophisticated, fully-evolved (intelligent) decision-making consciousness, in order to be able to judiciously snap at the juiciest of the two flies. Indeed, we could think of a model such as Didday and Arbib's 'Maximum Selector', where frogs simply evolved to fire at whichever fly appears the fattest. As experimental observations reveal, neurons in the frog's tectum (the frog brain's equivalent to the primate's visual cortex) fire, whenever a specific preferred stimulus falls into the cell's visual field (receptive field) Neurons in this kind of sensory brain areas are always arranged topographically; so that we will find close to each other those neurons, whose receptive fields likewise lie close one to another. The presence of a fly somewhere in the frog's visual field, will then trigger a vigorous response from those neurons, whose receptive fields correspond to that region in the visual field, where the unwary fly chose to spend the last moments of its life. Indeed, the firing of these neurons in turn signal an 'affordance' for the frog to snap at such delicious snack. Now, not all is yet lost for the injudicious insect; but luck may have it that a second ill-advised fly enters the frog's visual field at such critical time, offering itself in sacrifice to save its buddy's life. The fool's heroic action will then trigger in turn a second affordance for the frog to fill its belly's desires with some other piece of brainless meat. At this point, we can tell that these definitely must be some truly stressful moments for our amphibian friend, completely torn between two such exquisite delicacies. 

Now, the 'action-oriented perception' framework does not preclude the existence of a intelligent, decision-making agent. Rather, it is still perfectly possible to imagine an agent performing some assessment of the different affordances available and selecting for execution, whichever is believed to be most appropriate. In fact, if our pal were a human, we would undoubtedly say that some intelligent, decision-making agent in its brain will, for the good or for the bad, eventually make a choice between the two items in today's menu. But, since it is only a frog, we will look for some more scientific answer. In such a case, the frog's agency is implemented as a competition between the two affordances: whichever fly is estimated to be the fattest, will become the frog's lunch for the day. In fact, all the evidence support the notion that there will be a competition between the neurons advocating for the execution of the first fly entering the frog's visual field from the left and the neurons advocating for the execution of the second fly coming to the rescue from the right. . In this context, the cumulative strength, with which each of these two groups of neurons fire, give a measure of the confidence in the fitness of each of the respective proposals. Then, in a similar fashion to a battle between two armies, whichever (overall) fires more energetically (if given sufficient time) will come out victorious and impose the next action to be carried out. Whether there is a decision-making agent or not, for all intends and purposes, a choice has been made.

Indeed, whether there is a intelligent, decision-making agent or not, the whole point of intelligent behavior is to optimize the system's interaction with its environment. That is, at any given time, based on the current perceived state of the environment, the system applies the knowledge it has acquired throughout its lifespan, in order to come up with the optimal course of action most likely to fulfill the system's needs and desires. Certainly, it is always possible to view the system's knowledge, together with its needs and desires, as the fundamental components of the system's intelligent, decision-making agent. 

Now, admittedly, in the simple frog's example above, our friend did not need a whole lot of incredibly sophisticated knowledge, in order to be able to get itself a tasty snack. Basically, all what it required was the correct visual recognition of a fly in its environs, plus precisely estimating the prey's exact position, as well as accurately snapping at it. Fortunately, for such a simple task, it did not matter what kind of fly it was: male or female, old or young, etc. As a matter of fact, subject to our friend's better judgement, it probably is quite as happy catching house flies, fruit flies, crane flies... Rather, it seems reasonable to think that size should be the critical factor; so that the larger the prey, the more desirable it will be and, therefore, the higher firing rates it will elicit from those neurons responsive to it. 

There are many cases, however, where tiny physical (visual, auditory, olfactory, tactile, gustative...) differences do matter a lot. Our froggy friend may not care about its prey's sex; but a farmer hoping to make business from selling eggs will certainly be concerned about the sex of his newly-hatched chicks. Fact of the matter is he will not want to spend money feeding the creature for many weeks, only to eventually realize that the thing came out to be a rooster. A city dweller will undoubtedly find male chicks and female chicks absolutely indistinguishable; but for our egg-farmer, if his primary concern is business, he will make sure to learn how to tell a male chick from a female chick, right as they hatch out of the eggs. 

Probably even more so interesting is to consider, that very often tiny physical differences are insignificant for some task, but are very relevant for some other. For example, skin color does not bear any useful information to distinguishing men from women; but is most relevant to tell the race of a person. There are even cases where two patterns are sensorially identical; yet represent completely different concepts: for instance, a live tiger looks absolutely identical to a picture of a tiger; but they obviously represent completely different concepts. If we want to understand how recognition is conducted in the brain, it is fundamental to keep these caveats in mind, since the whole point of perception is to recognize what is the source of the observed data.

 

In fact, though not necessarily completely refute it - the previous observations certainly speak against the view, whereby a comprehensive description of the environment is first built, and from which a plan of action is then determined: If perception is decoupled from action, and no decision nor action is taken all until a full description of our environs has been completed; sooner or later we will be confronted with a situation, where the internal representation of our surroundings created by the sensory brain areas has not capture all the detail necessary to produce an accurate response. For instance, in a mountain scene of a river flowing down the slope, there will be many rocks visible along the river banks and the actual water stream. However, under normal circumstances, we will not consider each of them individually, as a body of its own; but they all will just be part of the river's global-picture concept. Now, if by any chance we need to cross the river, every rock will become relevant in its own right, as we look for any support point, where we can step along our way across. THe argument applies even more so to the sheer design principle; Namely, if an hypothetical city dweller, who has never been to a forest before, is required to learn to identify different tree species based on their leaves; he will find that Biederman's generalized cylinders shape-vocabulary (which is so very well suited to represent human-made objects) is not an appropriate tool set to accomplish such task (for only one thing, Biederman's 'geons' would not be able to support any information on the leaf's contour). Similarly, as prodigiously rich as his vocabulary was, Shakespeare would not be able to communicate effectively with an average XXI-century English speaker. In this framework, the only possible solution would be to over-dimension the universe spanned by our feature alphabet, so that it would be able to cope with any contingency we may encounter in the future; but that is obviously not an optimal approach. Thus, considering that everything in Nature is optimal - at least, as of yesterday -, we can be sure Nature found a better solution. Indeed, the optimality of an approach is always an excellent guide to find out how Nature solved some complex question. .

As a matter of fact, early experimental data showed that even the most basic physical features are learned from experience: If a new-born kitty is deprived from observing anything but vertical line patterns, it will only develop vertical-line feature detectors. Nature, however, only allows a very short period of time to learn these basic statistics of the environment. For cats, the neural plasticity (this learning process requires) only lasts a couple of weeks. If by any chance, our kitty friend travels later in its life to some other distant world, where the basic features bearing the most information (those basic features most telling and indicative of the most relevant physical differences) are different from the kind of oriented edges and color-opponency features, which are so useful down here on Earth, our little hero will find itself with no other option, than to figure things out with the basic feature-detectors set it acquired during the first weeks of its life.        

We can think of these basic, low-level feature detectors as the letters of some kind of alphabet developed by the brain to code the information it receives through the senses about the surroundings. However, for the same reasons, that it is not very helpful to describe a picture in terms of a massive mosaic of little oriented lines and tiny colored circles, a coding scheme based on awefully long strings of letters is likewise inefficient. Alternatively, Biederman's Geon Theory suggests that the brain extracts these simple, basic features to in turn identify complex 'generalized-cylinder' shapes in the environs; but such a description does not represent much of an improvement. Rather, it is certainly easy to understand, that just a verbal description will generally be far more useful: "There is a mug of tea on the table". Framed in these terms, it is possible to envision at least three different coding strategies:

In the first approach, a moderately sized alphabet is employed to code scenes into an awefully long string of letters. This corresponds to a depiction of the visual scene in terms of little oriented lines and tiny colored circles.

 

A second strategy would follow along the lines of Biederman's generalized-cylinders framework; namely, a very complex (Hieroglyphic or Chinese reminiscent) alphabet is used to code scenes into a moderately-long string of characters. In this case, a visual scene containing a mug sitting on a table would be described as a small cylinder receptacle, with a little, curved, thin cylinder handle attached to its side, sitting on a wide, flat cylinder board, laid in turn over four tall, thin cylinder legs.

     

The third approach would combine letters of a moderately-sized alphabet into syllables, to build words, which - placed one after another - in turn form sentences. Obviously, if one sentence is not enough to capture all the information with sufficient detail, more sentences can be added as necessary. I am sure you will not have to think long, before you can guess what is the strategy Nature chose...

Optimality is, however, not the only indication we have to guess Nature's approach. Indeed, neurophysiological recordings reveal that, as we progress from low-level sensory areas deeper into higher levels of cognition, neural responses become selective to increasingly complex sensory patterns. Since the visual modality is so dominant in the primate brain, it is easier to make out this design principle in the ventral "what" visual pathway (the neural pathway responsible for identifying "what" bodies are present in the visual scene). Thus, while neurons in primary visual brain areas V1 and V2 are selective to simple, basic features such as oriented edges and color opponencies, neurons in V4 respond to medium-complexity features, like curvature and convexity, and neural responses in the inferior-temporal cortex (IT) are selective to even more complex visual patterns, such as shapes or facial features.

  

At first glance, it may appear that the third approach lies somewhere in between the first and the second; but it is actually much more than that: certainly, it is far more versatile. The genius of Nature's sscheme resides in that it employs multiple levels of representation, building up one on top of the previous, and -crucially - getting more and more expandable and adaptable as it grows from one level into the next. A simplified way to think of it is considering just to levels of representation; namely letters and words. In the analogy suggested above, (for the visual modality) the letters are the basic oriented edges and color opponencies of V1 and V2 neural responses; whereas the words are the complex features (shapes, facial features and similarly complex patterns) signaled by neurons in the inferior-temporal cortex. Then, in the same way that a child learns how to speak, the animal brain learns to combine letters of the alphabet (i.e. basic sensorial features) to form and acquire new words with which to give names to those ideas and concepts, which prove to be more useful to establish the specifications of all the different tasks the animal carries out in its daily life.

 

An imaginary child, who is raised entirely within a law firm, will grow extraoridnarily proficient and skilled in the kind of legal jargon generally employed by lawyers. It, for example, will know very well the precise differences between all the various types of crimes: felony, misdemeanor, manslaughter, murder, etc.. On the other hand, it will only have a very rudimentary understanding of, say, the medical jargon. Viceversa, another imaginary child, who is raised entirely within a doctor's office, will grow extraordinary proficient in medical jargon; but will, otherwise, be completely at a loss when it comes to comprehending legal jargon. For it, there will only be crimes, some more severe than others, but, in essence, all basically crimes. Furthermore, neither of the two will, evidently, have any clue of any other jargon, such as cooking, mechanical, etc.. .

 

I grew up in Spain and therefore can tell very easily between the many distinct Spanish accents existent in the different regions of Spain: Madrid, Galicia, Western Andalucia, Eastern Andalucia, Basque Country, Aragon, Catalonia, etc.. However, when I traveled through Mexico, as much as my Mexican friends would swear there is the same kind of rich variety of Mexican Spanish accents, to me they would all sound basically the same. Needless to say, my Mexican friends will not be able to hear the differences between Spain's Spanish accents either; yet, there are so dissimilar! Likewise, growing up, I barely ever came across any East-Asian person. In those days of freedom from today's hypocritical political-correctness, there was a joke, according to which, if you were standing at an airport's checking counter, watching as east-Asian tourist arrive to do the check-in, you would never know if it was different people checking-in or it was only the same guy repeating the process over and over again. It was then quite funny to learn when I traveled to Japan, that Eastern-Asian folks get the very same perception; namely, to an hypothetical Eastern-Asian child, who is raised in some small village deep in the countryside, and has never come across a non-Eastern-Asian person, all Whites would look basically the same.

 This phenomenon is not restricted to auditory or visual stimuli; but actually applies to everything. Indeed, it reflects the most fundamental principle of how the brain codes the information it receives through the senses. Essentially, in order for the brain to learn to optimally interact with its environment, it is paramount to build a faithful model of the world outside and, for such purpose, its statistics need to be learned. As a result, we will be more sensitive to those stimulus categories that we experience most often. As a rough rule of thumb, if, for example, 10% of the stimuli we interact with are of blue color, 30% are yellow and the remaining 60% are red; then 10% of the neurons responsible for coding color information will develop some preference for blue color, 30% will skew towards yellow, and the remaining 60% will fire more vigorously to some red color hue. Similarly, as our dear kitty friend could tell you, if, for example, 60% of the lines we perceive in our world are vertical, 30% are horizontal and the remaining 10% are diagonal at various angles; then we can expect that 60% of the edge-detector neurons in the primary visual cortex will become selective for vertical lines, 30% will prefer horizontal lines, and the remaining 10% will respond more strongly to diagonal lines at various angles. Now, you may have got really concerned thinking, that your brain only has a very short window of time right after birth to learn the most basic features of the environment; but that is only because there is really no reason to expect said basic features to change over the course of your life. Or you really have plans to travel to some bizarre galaxy sometime soon? In contrast, the neural plasticity required to acquire strong sensitivity for complex (high-level) features lasts much longer. Evidently, it is far more reasonable to think, that you may be transplanted to some distan tpart of the world and get exposed to different accents, facial features or any other complex (high-level) feature alike.

So far, I have centered the discussion on the sensory domain; but, obviously, the principle most absolutely applies to the action domain as well. Certainly, still at advanced stages of life, we are capable of learning the kind of neural motor programs responsible for the execution of new tasks and skills. Furthermore, we evidently become more dexterous and accomplished at such tasks, the more we perform them. As a matter of fact, the way we interact with the environment has a fundamental effect on how information is coded in our brains. For one thing, the kind of tasks we carry out on a regular basis determine the setting in which we will spend more time, and, therefore- impact the distribution of the sensory information we perceive. For instance, a forester will spend far more time in a natural setting than a city dweller, and will then obviously develop a higher sensitivity to natural patterns. However, the implications extend far deeper.

At this point we enter in the field of supervised learning. Until now, I have been discussing forms of unsupervised learning in the brain. However, generally, in order to be able to achieve some goal, some form of supervised learning will ultimately be necessary. The role of unsupervised learning is to highlight and squeeze out the most relevant information about our surroundings; however, in order to achieve some goal, eventually it will be necessary to settle on a course of action. Supervised learning is then the process whereby the system learns what is the most appropriate course of action in a specific situation. As rational as we enjoy thinking we are, fact of the matter is the immense majority of our learning occurs through trial and error (after all, it is generally the most effective method): Given a specific situation, some action is taken. If a positive result is achieved, we will be more inclined to repeat it the next time we are faced with the same scenario. However, if the outcome is negative, next time we will rather try some other course of action. The crucial question then becomes to accurately determine, when does the exact same scenario present itself again. For this purpose complex feature detectors are acquired in higher-level brain areas. These complex features will signal the exact identity of the current scenario. Indeed, it is very useful to think of this learning process as the assignation of names to specific prominent scenarios. Whenever we reach some major success, we backtrack to the original state, that constituted the point of departure of the successful course of action. This starting situation is given some name, so that Next time it presents itself again, from its name we will know how to act. 

For instance, a young man looking for an adventure with some girl, will quickly learn, that he better focus his efforts on a girl, who exhibits a favorable disposition. Clearly, if she throws some dirt look at him, he will only be wasting his time. Needless to say, the best indication that she has some interest, is if she smiles at him. Consequently, the shape her mouth takes becomes the (complex) feature, which will signal the scenario where it may be a good idea to move forward and "attack".

Consequently, as it turns out, the kind of tasks we regularly carry out greatly determine, what feature detectors develop. As a matter of fact, this is particularly so for the more complex (high-level) features. Indeed, while basic (low-level) feature detectors emerge through unsupervised learning to reflect the statistics of the world outside; the higher up a feature detector resides in the representational hierarchy, the bigger influence we should expect the kind of supervise learning required for the acquisition of a skill must have hadin its development. Now, if the tasks we perform most often are a decisive factor to determine what features in the environment to look for and pay attention to; then it becomes even more evident that it is a poor design to decouple perception from action. In point of fact, it only makes sense to shape our analysis of our environment, based on how the acquired information is going to be used. For instance, if one is going to work as a lawyer, it only makes sense to grow one's vocabulary to gain a perfect command of the legal jargon. Likewise, if one is going to work as a medical doctor, it only makes sense to grow one's vocabulary to gain a perfect command of the medical jargon.

Here also we can see the main failing of current Artificial Intelligence systems: they are only useful for those problems for which they have been trained. If we consider again the example above of the imaginary child, who is raised entirely within a law firm, it will be very proficient in the practice of law; but it will otherwise be totally hopeless at anything else. The same could, obviously, be said of a child, who is exclusively trained in the practice of medicine: it will grow to know everything about illnesses and their corresponding medical treatments, but will be otherwise ignorant in any other domain. THe problem is not just that our legal and medical geniuses will not understand any jargon other than their own; but they will not even be able to fix themselves a sandwich, drive a car, let alone fix a flat tire. Consequently, since nothing in this world takes place in a vacuum, our friends' tunnel vision will limit them even in their field of expertise. Clearly, how is a lawyer going to be able to make a good case in a car-accident lawsuit, if he not only ignores everything about cars, but does not even know how to drive?  

Undoubtedly, it is far wiser to first get a general education, and only once one has a global understanding of the world, specialize in a specific field. That is, however, not how Artificial Intelligence systems are developed. Rather, much like our imaginary lawyer and medical-doctor friends, current AI systems are, right from their very inception, designed to carry out one specific task. 

With today's technology, it would not be a big deal to train a system to recognize whether a face is smiling or not. However, if we next want the system to identify the face's gender or race, it would not be possible to reutilize much of the logic implemented for the recognition of smiles. Basically, in order to resolve each of these tasks, the program will look for completely different features, bearing little relationship with each other. In sharp contrast, a child would learn concurrently to perform all three of these tasks and many more. As a consequence, as previously described, a hierarchy of features will form. In the lower levels of the hierarchy, unsupervised learning will yield a comprehensive set of feature detectors, specially conceived to squeeze out all the information necessary to form a detailed description of a face. These low-level feature detectors then serve as information-rich building blocks upon which more complex features in higher levels of the hierarchy can build up. These other higher-level (intermediate) features will be optimized to form the basis, from which a final group of feature detectors at the top of the hierarchy can easily determine a solution to all the various problems the system is faced with.    

 

Language comes here again really handy to illustrate, why simultaneous learning, in all the different tasks performed by the brain, leads to a seamless, optimal set of feature detectors perfectly suited to solve them. Let us consider how we should refer to the machine people use to make photographic copies of any sheet of paper. One straightforward option is to call it 'photocopy machine'; yet some folks find it more convenient to refer to it as "a xerox". The obvious advantage of using 'photocopy machine' is that it does not require any additional learning; but, from that name, anybody can easily figure it out, even if you have never seen any such machine before. Xerox, on the other hand, is not as self-explanatory. Moreover, if - not unlike a newborn baby - the AI system has not acquired some basic vocabulary, or simply does not have any general understanding of the world, and, consequently, does not know what paper is about, what is a machine, what is a photo or what it means to copy something; then it is certainly going to be quite a process to figure out what is this "xerox" thing.

 The key consideration here is that concepts get defined by how they relate to other concepts. For instance, a table and a desk are very similar things, in that their purpose is in both cases to serve as support to other items. However, whereas one would normally place tableware on a table, office material are more common on a desk. Once more, in the language domain it is particularly useful to consider how concepts relate to each other. Each noun can serve as agent, direct object or indirect object for certain verbs, but not for some others. Animals can eat, reproduce, sleep, love, kill, etc. ; but they would normally not crystalize, evaporate, be written, be sown, etc.. Similarly, adjectives make sense with certain nouns, but not with others. Finally, verbs likewise have their own rules on which adverbs are suited to qualify them, as well as which nouns they accept as agents, direct objects or indirect objects. Interestingly, it would be possible to conceive the meaning of any word based on these rules.

       As a matter of fact, if the whole purpose is to optimize our interaction with our environment, it only makes sense to build our understanding of the world based on how each concept functions in relation to everything else. Let us reflect on what it takes to solve the following questions: Is Tony crying? Who is Sergio talking to? Is Angelica smiling at me? Is David sleeping? Where is Maria looking? If we tackle these tasks in isolation, we will get a separate set of feature detectors for each of them. However, if we address them concurrently, seamlessly going from one to another; we will find that the eyes receive special scrutiny, as a significant group of feature detectors develops around them. Indeed, a detailed analysis of the eyes should extract decisive information towards the resolution of all five of the above tasks. As a matter of fact, it would almost seem like the eyes have life of their own. Undisputably, the eyes are more significant than, say, a patch of hair or skin.

As it turns out, as we interact with our environs and act upon the bodies around us, we slowly discover what bears information and what does not. In other words, what is meaningful and what is meaningless, what gets a name and what remains nameless, what is coded and what is left out. For instance, whereas we employ specific names to designate vertical lines and horizontal lines, other degrees of orientation are simply lumped together under the term 'diagonal lines'. Clearly, vertical and horizontal lines are of special significance: while horizontal surfaces offer a safe ground on which other items can be placed without risk of sliding, tall structures will not fall, so long they stay vertical.

Indeed, there is a reason why some people find it more convenient to refer to photocopy machines as 'xerox': While 'photocopy machine' can mean several different things, 'xerox' is very specific and precise. Thus, if 'xerox' machines are significant enough, that everybody understands the term; then it may just be better to say 'xerox' and everybody will know what exactly you are talking about.

Yes, at the end of the day, all what really matters is that everybody understands what the thing is about. This, however, is exactly what today's AI system fail to accomplish. For instance, an AI system may learn to differentiate between women's faces and men's faces, and later between women's voices and men's voices; but it will never develop any concept of what is a woman and what is a man. In effect, all what the system will know how to do is to classify images between, say, category FX and category FY, and classify audios between , say, category VX and category VY. Yet, come Valentine's Day, do not expect the system to give you any kind of advice on, what kind of conduct to follow or how to go about it.

If a useful definition of 'intelligence' is the ability to learn to optimize one's interaction with the environment, in order to achieve one's own goals; then it would be reasonable to conclude, that our 'faces and voices classification' AI system is really dumb, since it will never be able to figure out anything other than classifying faces and voices. Given their undisputable prowess staying alive and thriving in this wild world, for all intends and purposes (other than the classification of human faces and voices), even a cockroach would be far smarter and more accomplished.         

Again, the whole purpose of perception is to support the recognition process, and the whole purpose of recognition is in turn to fuel the optimal interaction with our environment. In other words, the whole point is to find out what distinct bodies are there in our environment; where, from all words, 'what' is the key one here, as it refers to the meaning, that is all the information describing how those bodies function and how we can interact with them, in order to achieve our goals. We can therefore see that the end of recognition is not to assign some label such as FX or FY, but to deliver a key; namely, the key which unlocks all the information about the corresponding concept. Indeed, when our froggy friend looks at a fly, it does not merely see a six-legged cylinder, with two wing tapered ellipses on its back and other two tiny antennae poles on its head. Rather, it gets the idea that the thing, if captured, is going to satisfy all of its belly's desires. Similarly, when we look at a decorated christmas tree, we do not merely see a treetop, with lots of flashing lights, shiny balls and little figures of shooting stars, bells, bearded old men, reindeers, sledges, etc.. Rather, we perceive a decorated christmas tree, with all the meaning such concept represents: when do we put Christmas trees out? what mood and spirit is supposed to be predominant during that season? Where can we expect to find our Christmas presents?

We can therefore conclude that the learning process consists in building such a model of the world, where the brain maintains all the information it has acquired on how things work. contrary to what it intuitively seems, This information is not hosted by any single, central brain area, but it is spread all over the brain. Furthermore, importantly enough, only a fraction of this information is accessible to our consciousness and, therefore, constitutes the knowledge 'we' are actually aware of. Indeed, I have no doubt that you do not struggle the tiniest bit telling between a man's face and a woman's face. Yet, if you were to meet an extraterrestrial alien, who understands your language, but has never come across a human face, would you be able to write down a set of rules, that it could use to solve such task all by itself? While I would not be totally surprise if you can, I am far more sceptical, that you would be able to produce a similar written explanation on how to go about telling between a woman's voice and a man's voice. Certainly, we so effortlessly sort these tasks all the time, that one would think it should be easy to come up with such a set of written rules. In fact, it is very likely that we do not even ever learn them, but they are already wired up in our brains, when we are born. Yet, precisely because these tasks are performed unconsciously out of our intuition, and, therefore, our reason does not have access to such information, we find ourselves incapable of spelling out, what is the logic we follow. As a matter of fact, if we find it more difficult to explain how to solve a task by means of auditory information, it is because the visual modality is so predominant in the primate brain, and our reason thus only very rarely employs auditory information to perform any task. Consequently, the great majority of the concepts formed in our mind are defined from visual information, whereas only a few are defined from auditory information. Interestingly, we can start glimpsing, why - as we all have always intuitively felt - there is such a tight connection between consciousness and language.

To make the point even clearer, let us consider the question of discerning a fake smile. Probably, we all have some intuition to tell, whether a person's smile on a photograph is genuine or (as it is most often the case) is just fake. However, unless one has conscientiously and methodically study the problem for quite some time, it is rather unlikely anyone would be able to provide an answer with any degree of certainty. Now, as a matter of fact, when I was in graduate school, I had a postdoc friend, who had precisely researched that exact question. He explained that it is possible to distinguish a genuine smile from the wrinkles that appear next to the outer corners of the eyes. Well, if you now come out saying, that you actually already knew it, you will definitely kill me here; but, assuming that you did not, now it got added to, and has become part of, your 'consciousness-accessible- knowledge base. Thus, the nnext time you are confronted with such a scenario, you will be aware, you will know an appropriate course of action to go about it. Moreover, if by any chance you are so inclined, you could now also go to your friends to boast about your knew knowledge and give them a dissertation on how it is possible to figure out, if someone's smile is fake. Yes, it all comes to show, there is a tight connection between consciousness and language.

 

Now, here it is of great importance to debunk a very-deeply rooted incorrect assumption; namely, it is not reasonable to argue, that someone is more stupid, just because he or she is not able to spell out, how to go about discerning a man's face from a woman's face, a man's voice from a woman's voice, or a fake smile from a genuine smile. Clearly, what matters is that you know how to solve a problem, not that you are able to spell out how you do it. As a matter of fact, the trick I just taught you may actually be incorrect; I may have even lied to you! As a matter of fact, it has always generally been the case, that when someone found out something, he made sure to keep it for himself, so that he could extract the greatest benefit from the new finding. On the other hand, religions are one of a million other examples, showing how obtaining recognition and the authority and sway that come with it, is usually the real motivation behind humans' selective eagerness to explain stuff to others. THe good news, however, are that, since often you will intuitively know how to address the issue, if I lied to you or my theory is simply incorrect, you will intuitively be able to realize my misguidance (unless you choose to lie to yourself and fall for it, that is).   

Now, regardless of whether my theory is correct and constitutes genuine knowledge or it is only a hoax, there is no denial that the ability to spread the information all over, is extremely powerful. It may not denote someones intelligence but, undoubtedly, the feature bestows a mighty evolutionary edge.

As a matter of fact, it seems reasonable to think of this consciousness-accessible knowledge base as the individual's current scientific state of the art, since it likewise represents the individual's most established beliefs on how all significant things work. Yet, it is here important to keep in mind, that, in the same way that, as a general rule, scientific theories are eventually proven wrong, the ideas, which make up our conscious knowledge may likewise be misguided.

In any case, the key consideration to take away is that our 'consciousness-accessible- knowledge base is not more than a suplemental layer of functionality on top of all the knowledge already kept in the unconscious areas of our brain, as part of our intuition. Crucially, however, contrary to our deeply rooted beliefs, 'top' is not intended here to mean the crest, jewel in the crown or most sublime expression of our prodigious human intellect; but it only refers to the fact, that it builds up from the information held in the unconscious layers.

  

For instance, whenever we spot a human face, in order to properly interact with that individual, one of the first pieces of information our brain will want to find out is that person's gender. Now, your brain has resolved such a question so many times that you will surely be better of following your instinct, than reasoning it out according to some obscure theory you may have developed on your own or somebody may have taught you. On the other hand, discerning a fake smile is not such an useful task, that our brain needs to carry out all the time. Thus, since it does not have that much practice on it, it may be a good idea to (consciously) follow some trick, like the one I offered above. Now, when it comes to solving a system of differential equations, there is no way around it, there is no way you can do it intuitively; but it will be necessary to reason it out. Yet, conversely, nobody would go about resolving differential equations, in order to maintain balance while riding a bicycle. It is not just that it would be impractical; but, as the current state of the art in robotics show, in all likelihood, the model our unconscious levels has learned, are more accurate than whatever mathematical model of equations we may have come up with.

As a matter of fact, even a highly cognitive task such as reading text is carried out with very little intervention by the conscious levels of our brain. Indeed, it is only when we are starting learning how to read, that we go about one by one consciously and conscientiously recognizing each and every letter. However, little by little, as we gain more practice, more and more we become able to identify at once strings of several letters or even entire words. In fact, as we go through a text, very often it is possible to make a rough guess of what word will come next. Surely there will be a plethora of sensible candidates, but as we take a closer look at the word, several different cues will help to tilt the scale towards the right one. Not unlike the fly-selection mechanism running in our froggy friend's brain, there will be a competition between the several word candidates. Cues such as the word's basic shape, its length, the first letter and the last letter, etc. will elicit higher firing rates in those groups of neurons selective for those candidate words most similar to the one in question. At some point we will feel confident enough of what will be the outcome and will call the competition good. Whichever candidate word is winning at that time will so become our (conscious) recognition and we will be ready to proceed with the next words.

  

From these examples, it really seems difficult to conclude, that our consciousness acts as anything such as a intelligent, decision-making agent sitting at the very crest of our intellect. Rather, it is just an additional layer of functionality and, by no means, the most glorious and supreme of all. In fact, in order to understand the role and functionality of consciousness, it may be helpful to imagine our 'consciousness-accessible' knowledge base functioning as a Dictionary, where, throughout our lives, little by little, we write down new entries to consolidate the information of every new learning episode. Alternatively, in some other occasions, someone else may supply the information. Needless to say, the latter is typically the case for us, modern humans, as most of our knowledge is acquired from other people. Crucially, however, as opposed to real dictionaries, the information contained in our conscious knowledge is by no means always exact; but it only represents our current beliefs on what things mean and how do they work. Indeed, as confident as we may be of our wisdom, our conscious knowledge is not the kind of dictionary we buy from a bookstore, that has been edited by the most eminent authorities in the language in question; but it would be more accurate to think of it as a 'personal dictionary' that we - and the people we trust - haphazardly knock together as we explore the world around us.    

 

In order to illustrate this point better, let us imagine an immigrant, who arrives at a foreign country with no knowledge of the language spoken at her new place of living. At the beginning she will just do her best to guess the meaning of what the natives may say to her, and to express whatever she may think in response. Sometimes she will perform some gestures or repeat something she may have heard before. Basically, at first she would be experimenting and learning through trial and error. Indeed, sometimes she will get it wrong and sometimes she will get it right. In each of those occasions, she will create or correct an entry in her 'personal dictionary', noting down what is that she learned in the recent encounter and learning episode. Consequently, little by little, her 'personal dictionary' will get populated with the meanings and explanations for a plethora of lexemes and language expressions. Soon enough she will be able to use her notes as a reference. In the same way that someone may apply a trick he has learned to discern fake smiles, she could use her 'personal dictionary' to look up the meaning of whatever someone else has said to her. Similarly, she could go through her notes to prepare how to articulate her response. However, as she gains more experience and grows more proficient - in the same way that we follow our instinct, in order to determine a person's gender from and image of his or her face, or to keep balance while riding a bicycle - she will stop resorting on her dictionary. Certainly,she will come to be able to perfectly understand what people is talking to her, as well as intuitively, sort of automatically, come up with the right words to express her thoughts.

The general scheme therefor seems to follow three basic rules. The first time we encounter a given situation and have no clue how to go about it, we just try out something and see how it goes. 

However, very soon we will acquire some experience and will be in condition to 'reason out' how to proceed. If not exactly the same, probably we have previously faced a similar scenario. Thus, based on how it went on all earlier related episodes, we will be able to make an educated guess, of what should be our best next move. Importantly, the process, whereby our previous experience is gathered and an optimal response is researched, - as much as it may be administered by the conscious levels of our brain - is largely conducted unconsciously. Indeed, the current scenario will evoke reminiscent circumstances, which will trigger many different suggestions on how to answer the present question and advance to the next step. Whichever of these ideas is fit enough to best the competition, will then reach the conscious levels.

Eventually, however, we will have accumulated a lot of practice and will be able to immediately, 'instinctively' identify the specific case at hand, and will be ready to produce the most appropriate response. 

Clearly, unconscious learning and conscious learning do not follow separate, conflicting paths; but go hand in hand. In fact, fascinatingly enough, there is a parallelism between how conscious processes and unconscious processes work together, in order to learn how to optimize the animal's interaction with its environment, and how lab research and the publication of scientific findings are interlaced and lead together to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

    

We can therefore deduce that it would not be entirely accurate to depict consciousness as a mere alternative method to represent information. Rather, it appears to be a coding scheme developed for the purpose of implementing complex plans. There is no doubt about it, everything in the brain circles around the principle of how to reach one's goals. Unfortunately, the course of action required is sometimes incredibly serpentine.

Needless to say, that is typically the case for highly evolved species such as human beings. Life is certainly not easy for our new immigrant friend. Our old froggy pal may be able to make a living of (simply) processing visual information, hoping to discover something in its environs to satisfy its belly with; but our new immigrant friend's odds to succeed will depend critically on her skill of listening to whatever the people around her say, in order to find out what ideas they are trying to communicate. As little inclined as I am to exalt the superiority of human intellect and as far as I am of wanting to diminish our froggy pal's undeniable talents, it seems reasonable to say, that our ability to conversate and argue with someone else, trying to sway our interlocutor's views, or working out a common problem, requires a higher level of sophistacation than solving an - undoubtedly complex - visual pattern matching task. For one thing, bringing down an insect flying around one's space can be conceived as a one-shot problem; whereas making a point or producing an explanation (as I am doing myself here) calls for putting together a whole, intricate plan of action. In fact, Graeber and Wengrow very correctly and insightfully point out in their book "The Dawn of Everything" how conscious thought and reasoning can be seen and characterized as a mental exercise of arguing with or explaining something to someone else.

For instance, it would be reasonable to conceive the mental processes followed by a chess player while playing a game, as conducting an argument against her opponent. As a matter of fact, viewed under this light, fascinatingly enough, we can get some clues on how the ability of reasoning and strategic planning may have originated, since a chess game is nothing but the simulation of a fight. Admittedly, most fights are limited to a rudimentary, brutish exchange of blows; but if, for example, you ambition to become the group's alpha male and your sheer life is on the line, you will be sure to put a whole lot of thought in how to go about the upcoming combat. As a matter of fact, the very same argument can be made for chess: Intellectuals past and present have always loved to elaborate on the wonders of human intelligence and all what set us apart from even the most evolved of all other animal species, (albeit, admittedly, no lesser is the passion with which we all listen to those words of praise). Undoubtedly, no other animal would be able to play chess, since they lack essential, distinctively human intellectual abilities, such as visualization, calculation, forwardd planning, abstract thought, etc.. Yet, how often, when playing chess, do we actually select our next move, based on something more than what our instinct says looks good? It is definitely not that we are not capable of thinking ahead a few movements; but we simply do not feel like making the effort. Indeed, it takes a whole lot of energies to explore and analyze in depth all possible combinations. Fact of the matter is our conscious thinking does typically not allow the unconscious levels of our brain enough time to research exhaustively the optimal answer to a given query. Yet, undeniably, the result will always be more accurate, if we make the effort. I guess we generally understand it is just not worth it, since, after all, it is just a silly chess game.

For some odd reason, the discussion is always restricted to what is strictly possible and what is strictly impossible. It would instead be more accurate to consider what is practical and what is not in each situation, or if any comparison is at all reasonable, since the circumstances are simply completely different. Namely, how on Earth is a monkey going to learn to play Chess, if, to begin with, we do not even share a common language, that a human can use to teach him? 

It is certainly a healthy idea to be always wary and distrustful of anybody, who starts singing the praises of humans' superior intelligence. Experience and History tell us there are powerful reasons to question, whether he is really thinking, that all humans are very intelligent, or what is actually going through his mind is rather a profound fascination with his very own superior intellect. In fact, it is rather unknown of anybody, who has exhibit any genuine belief in the remarkable intelligence of the unwashed masses. Of course, it is not difficult to see why the master of all orators, the illustrious Roman senator Cicero, was so fond of exalting the superiority of the Roman character. Clearly, it would only be foolish for me to suggest, that you should follow my guidance, because I am very intelligent. Instead, it would yield far better results, if I argue, that you and I are the only smart people around, and everybody else is just stupid.

  As a matter of fact, Chess is about the simplest task any animal could confront in its life. Indeed, in Nature there is no clear-cut definition for anything and the number of combinations is therefore literally infinite. In contrast, in chess the board is clearly divided in 64 distinct squares and each player has a total of 16 perfectly-defined pieces, in that, for instance, each of the eight pawns look exactly the same, and in turn strictly different from the knights, the bishops, the rooks, the queen and the king. These definitions amount to nothing less than a model of a far more complex reality (namely, a real life combat). As discussed before, the magnitude of the animal brain's feat, building such sort of model of the entire world around it, simply cannot be overstated: it is as prodigious as miraculous. Absolutely, every element in Nature is unique and only after some common pattern of behavior is found among a certain set of elements, it makes sense to the brain to group and form a meaningful concept out of them. 

For instance, every woman is unique and there are not any two women who are exactly the same. Yet, for a homosexual man wishing to find a lover, whatever differences may exist between women will never represent as much as a determent, as what he would feel towards another man. Now, in many other contexts, sex will not be an important factor, determining how we will interact with another human being. A colonial slave trader, for example, will discriminate people based on their race, and the slave's sex will generally not elicit that much consideration. In further contrast, a child's parents is the concept it will work with, when it comes to fulfilling its basic needs for love, protection and guidance. The perception of the environment allows our brain to collect information about everything that is out there. The analysis of this information yields cues on how to act in order to achieve our goals. It should not come to any surprise, that population codes of the kind that can be observed in the brain, are particularly well suited to represent all this information: When it comes to other humans, some neurons may code that person's estimated age, and some others may represent information about his or her occupation. When it comes to other animals, some neurons may code that animal's sex and some others may represent information about its degree of hostility against, or affability towards, humans. When it comes to inanimate objects or matter, some neurons may code that body's consistency and some others may represent information about its utility. As described earlier, all these neural selectivities would have developed from experience gathered during previous interactions.

For instance, past experience should have made it clear, that visual information from the region occupied by the eyes, is very useful to the resolution of many tasks. Consequently, it is only to be expected that eventually some concept of the eyes will (somehow) form. Evidently, the appearance of the eyes bear more information than some random patch of skin. However, there are also some tasks, for which a close look to some specific patch of skin is very helpful. Indeed, a profusion of little lines in the skin next to the outer corner of the eyes is evidently a strong indication of a person's advanced age. Soon we will start refering to these short lines in the skin by the name of 'wrinkles'. If anything, the brain becomes 'aware' of the significance of those little lines next to the outer corner of the eyes: at a minimum, they hint what is the person's age. But, moreover, now that you comprehend the concept of 'wrinkles', you are in condition to understand my explanation on how to discern a fake smile.

Now,two stimuli may look very much alike; yet, if they function differently, they may represent different concepts. For instance, it is reasonable to wonder, if it should be at all possible to detect, when an old person fakes a smile. Indeed, if our trick to tell a genuine smile relies on the appearance of wrinkles next to the outer corner of the eyes; but older people always exhibit wrinkles next to the outer corner of the eyes anyway; then, whenever an old person smiles, we would always have to deduce, the or she did so genuinely. Or, perhaps, there are two different types of wrinkles on the outer corner of the eyes? Perhaps, the kind of wrinkles, that emerge when a person smiles are actually different from the wrinkles permanently visible on old folks? Perhaps, we should talk of "genuine smile wrinkles" and "old folks wrinkles"? I guess, at the end of the day, the question whether a smile is fake or not, is just not sufficiently relevant, that we would want to bother making such distinction, and start working with those two different concepts.  

In fact, matters will look much differently to an egg farmer: the success of his business depends critically on his ability to discriminate between male chicks and female chicks. Hence, he will be sure to figure out, what subtle details distinguish one from the other. Much to his displeasure, however, he will confront the mother of all problems in the field of Intelligence; namely, the credit assignment problem. Fustratingly enough, by the time the thing turns out to be a rooster, it would obviously be too late to analyze, what looked differently on him as a newborn chick, compared to his newborn sisters.

Now, you may have noticed that (for reasons that should not be too hard to guess) so far I have kept skirting round the very tough question of, what leads to the emergence of a (conscious) concept. Indeed, how or when does a concept form? How, when or why does it click on you, do you become (consciously) aware of, that, for example, there is something such as wrinkles, that hint on the advanced age of a person? Using my own terminology, how or when is a new entry created in the 'consciousness-accessible' knowledge base? What leads or when do you have such an aha moment? As a matter of fact, hopefully, you had not heard before about my trick to distinguish between fake and true smiles, and therefore you could shed some light on the question; namely, what happened inside your mind, how did it feel, as you awoke to the realization, that the appearance of little lines on the skin next to the outer corner of the eyes, indicate a true smile? Unfortunately, however,the test is flawed, since undoubtedly you were already aware of the concept of wrinkles. So, perhaps, the question should be turned to: what happened inside your mind, how did it feel, when you first awoke to the concept of wrinkles? However, if you are like me, probably you will not remember. Rather, as you grew up and encounter many different folks, little by little  your brain came to associate thin lines on face skin with advanced age, and it was only that, at some point, you learned (most likely someone told you) that those thin lines are commonly referred by the name of "wrinkles". 

There is indeed a reason why I have been skirting round this questions. Yes, they are reminiscent and take us back to the original inquiry of what leads to consciousness? After all this exposition, it turns out the key to decipher the enigma of consciousness resides in finding an answer to the not-less-difficult question of  what leads you to wake up to and become aware of a new concept? However, if you have put close attention to my argument, you may have felt, that my interrogation on the nature of your aha moments is in contradiction to everything I have been arguing so far. Indeed, the question presupposes the existence of a intelligent, decision-making agent. But how are we so sure that such a intelligent agent does exist? 

Scholars in Human Studies adamantly reject neuroscientists' observation, according to which humans basically operate on autopilot. That cannot possibly be correct, since humans' self-awareness is proof that there is indeed some pilot driving our choices and decisions. Now, if we assume and rely on the existence of a intelligent agent, it becomes much easier to explain even the most complicated and momentous phenomena. What led to the invention of farming?: well, someone somehow reasoned it out and everybody followed afterwards. Why did humans start building states?: someone's light bulb went off, obviously. How was writing invented?: Someone had such an aha moment, dah! If the vehicle turn this way and then that way; it is obviously because the pilot simply made those choices. 

Now, if such line of thinking is correct, then you would be most absolutely justified in cursing at me for having been tormenting you for hours on end with this convoluted theory of how consciousness emerged and the autonomous vehicle little by little became able of driving around without any physical pilot's intervention. Certainly, why the heck did I not just sum it all up by saying, that there is a intelligent, decision-making agent in each and all of us, and one day it simply, magically woke up, rose up and began walking. As a matter of fact, life would so be much easier for neuroscientists, as they could then conveniently shift the burden of proof to neurobiologists: namely, since neuroscientist cannot find neural correlates of any intelligent agent, it is left up to neurobiologist to explain how individual neurons dwell on problems until they finally take a decision.

THe problem, however, is that the data simply nowhere provides any support for the physical existence of any intelligent agent anywhere. Indeed, contrary to what until now has always been believed, modern scholars in Human Studies point out , that prehistoric humans did not wake up one day and decided to start farming. Rather, for a period of a few thousand years, they were experimenting with agriculture. Yet, how could anybody experiment with 'agriculture', if one does not know 'agriculture' in the first place? Yes, our preconceptions are so pervasive that we constantly mould our reasonings to conform to their designs. Yet, all the evidence speaks against such proliferation of aha moments:

If all had been a matter of someone's light bulb going off, then the process of gradually developing and improving techniques for the production of food had obviously not lasted thousands of years. Similarly, contrary to what ancient historians narrated, today there is no doubt, that the Roman Republic did not come into being fully formed, as a result of any prodigious aha moment. Rather, it slowly unfolded in fits and starts over a period of hundreds of years. An even stronger case can be made on one of humanity's most extraordinary and remarkable enterprises: to the extent that we are still working on getting it right (and actually making quite a bit of a muck at the present time), there is no way anybody can reasonably sustain, that state formation was someone's glorious idea.

 

With the development of writing, human knowledge flourish for hundreds of years, (arguably) ultimately reaching a climax with the rise of Greek philosophy. However, the end of the Classic era, gave way to a long period of stagnation, which lasted well until the middle of the second millenia, when the scientific method was developed. Incredibly enough, the whole problem resided in one single word, and it all got resolved as soon as it was replaced for another. Indeed, the critical breakthrough introduced by the scientific method consisted in the wording of our questions: all until then humans have started all their questions with "what"; empirical research will instead inquire "how" things work. This little detail fixed and the world would never again be the same.       

 

It is certainly natural to start our questions with "what". In fact, as little children we do not stop asking "what is this?" and "what is that?". Clearly, for obvious reasons, we are eager to know, and asking for intriguing pieces of information definitely appears as the fastest path to learning and wisdom. After all, there are good reasons to think, that some loving and caring adult will know the answer, and be happy to provide an explanation. However, it is not so effective to investigate on our own "what" is the nature or meaning of something. If there is only Nature to inquire, it is only foolish to expect Nature to ever open its mouth and provide an explanation. If only intuitively, it is easy to see, how we will be more likely to obtain a greater benefit, if we investigate instead "how" stuff works. It all makes sense, so long humans believed in gods, they persisted asking what is the nature of things. However, as the gods kept failing to provide any kind of useful answer, certain humans grew increasingly frustrated and began to look for explanations on their own.   

It is certainly not a coincidence that the scientific method follows the same approach as the brain: it basically consists in the elaboration of a model, where we will try to capture the essence of the system or phenomenon we want to understand. In other words, the model is a simplified version of the reality; in that the minor details are left aside and only the important stuff is kept. THe whole point is (in statistical learning terms) to discover and extract the basic structure of the data, or (in colloquial terms) how does the thing basically work. 

From our experience with the system under investigation we should be able to make an educated guess as of the principles that govern it, and are therefore responsible for producing the data we observe. If the theorized principles lead the model to reproduce the system's behavior, we will be justified in growing confident - but (importantly) by no means certain - of their accuracy; otherwise, we will have to re-formulate and implement them again in a new model. For example, from his observations of the environment, Newton postulated that, whenever a force 'F' is applied to a body of mass 'm', said body would accelerate at a rate of 'a'. This formulation in itself represents a very specific and unambiguous prediction on how bodies move, which (importantly enough) can then be unequivocally tested. For that purpose, a model is build implementing such law. Then, if the model reproduces the behavior we observed in Nature (e.g. any body subject to gravity falls at the acceleration rate predicted by the law), we can grow confident, that the postulated law applies, indeed. If, however, the model's behavior does not mimic the observed data, then we will have to go back to the drawing table.  

Now, crucially, contrary to almost unanimous belief, 'scientific' reasoning whatever that actually means) is not about thinking logically (you know, it is always only me who thinks logically and whoever does not agree with me is just being irrational). To begin with, learning in the brain does not follow the strict laws of Formal Logic. According to logic theory, it would not make any sense to say, that just because B follows A (A->B) it can be assume that A likewise follows B (B->A). Yet, the kind of associations learned by the brain does make such assumption. For instance, if we are able to establish that being intelligent leads to making a lot of money (Intelligence -> Money), eventually, unavoidably, we would start assuming that, if someone has a lot of money, in all likelihood, it is because that person is very smart (Money -> Intelligence). The key distinction is that, whereas logic functions in black-and-white terms, and therefore only understands true-or-false propositions; the brain is better suited to deal with all the uncertainty in the real world, because it operates with probabilities. Consequently, as illogical as it may sound, fact of the matter is our brain's 'illogical' probabilistic reasoning is actually better suited to make out how the real world works. As a matter of fact, if we are ready to accept, that, in the real world of ours, intelligence leads to wealth; then it is not really far out to believe, that whoever has a lot of money, in all likelihood, is very smart. In other words, what the brain actually learns is to estimate the probability that a wealthy person may be very smart as well, which in fact is much more informative than what pure logic will ever be able to tell us.  

Likewise, to the extent that scientific research follows the brain's model, the beauty of the scientific method, the key advantage of asking questions correctly, is that it yields useful information; namely, if we learn how things work, we will be better able to optimize our interaction with those things, in order to achieve our goals. In stark contrast, if we only philosophize about "what" is the nature of things, all what we will get is nothing but opinions. Do not get me wrong, I have also been taught the propriety of always valuing to bits and expressing the most vivid interest for anybody's points of view; but just because all opinions are always respectable, it does not mean they are all coherent or informative. Indeed, in the abstract world of theory, departing from a set of axioms, it is possible to prove by logical inference the validity of a certain proposition. . However, in real life, by pure logic, it is strictly impossible to prove that something will always be true, as well as it is strictly impossible to disprove that something will never be correct. Clearly, just because we have not yet found a counterexample, it does not mean that one day one will appear. Likewise, just because we have not yet found any case, where the argument in question is actually correct, it does not mean that one day one will appear. Now, since it is not possible to prove anyone absolutely right or absolutely wrong, all opinions are respectable. Then, since we all shape our arguments based on what fits our interests best, the philosophical debate degenerates into a meaningless sophistry contest, where reason and logical thinking are set aside, and personal loyalties come instead to drive the conversation: if you are with me, you will agree with and support my arguments, and, if you are with them, you will agree with and support their arguments.

One excellent example of the futility of starting our queries with "what" is the perennial question on "what" is human nature. Needless to say, intellectuals have been arguing this issue for ages, some people think human nature is good and some other think human nature is bad, but we have never been able to reach any sort of convincing conclusion. Certainly, both sides have basis to make some really good cases, as human beings are obviously capable of the most wonderful, as well as the most abominable acts and conducts. Now, tellingly enough, those who most benefit from the System will typically credit it for everything good about humanity, as much as they will blame on evil human nature everything wrong about us; whereas those who hold the short en of the System's stick (or simply nurse a grudge against it) will conversely portray humans as innocent, loving and beautiful creatures brutalized by the ruthless, evil System (Notwithstanding, however, nowadays that Media has popularize the upper class' way of thinking and elite values and culture has permeated even the deepest levels of the society, we are all at last slowly getting convinced that human nature is definitely evil).

In fact, in the humanities and social 'sciences' scholars still mostly focus their efforts on finding the best definitions for the systems or phenomena they study. However, if it is so extremely difficult to define concepts such as civilization, state, power, love, intelligence or consciousness is because we do not have any clear idea as of how any of those 'things' work. Then, everybody proposes his or her definition. Clearly, we all want to be the genius, who gets it right and goes down in History as the one, who coined the term by which everybody knows the 'thing'. In actuality, all those definitions represent unconscious attempts to capture the essence of how the system or phenomenon in question works. For instance, what is a tumor? Well, the critical piece of information about tumors is that there are two basic types: benign tumors and malignant tumors, where the most significant distinction between these two types resides in "how" they "work"; namely, benign tumors are unlikely to lead to the patient's death, whereas the odds of a fatal outcome is significantly higher in cases of malignant tumors. Now, on the other hand, considering the remarks above on our brain's 'illogical', probabilistic reasoning, is it correct to define the thing we call 'Reason', as "the power of the mind to think, understand and form judgements, by a process of logic"? or does the Dictionary's definition reflect our misunderstanding of how the thing really works? 

Evidently, given that - unless we know how the thing works - there is no principled, objective mechanism to assess the correctness of a definition, eventually, in the battle for eternal glory, any kind of tactic is fair game and any argument can - and often will - be used. Probably the most obvious approach to boast one's theory' correctness consists in citing countless supporting examples. However, contrary to what may be intuitive, just because there are infinite examples consistent with a theory, it is still not possible to firmly conclude the theory will necessarily always be true. On the other hand, needless to say, another frequent, quite effective tactic is to attack someone else's definition. In this wild world of ours, if the winner is going to take it all, one may as well resort on misrepresenting the rival's definition. Clearly, it is much easier to point out flaws in an account, after it has been conveniently manipulated to state whatever one needs it to state. Worst of all, since we choose our loyalties based on, who we perceive is stronger, wiser or, all in all, is going to keep us better fed; at the end of the day, the following a given theory will be able to obtain will often be determined by the author's reputation, rather than the correctness and accuracy of the theory itself.

Considering these shortcomings, the crucial contribution of the scientific method is that it represents a principled, objective procedure, whereby a theory can either gain credibility aside of any subjective biases or be proven definitely false. Indeed, since the focus is set on explaining how things work, the predictions on the system's behavior raised by the theory's model can be objectively verified by further experimental data: if the behavior predicted by the model is not in accordance with the new observations, the theory will have to be corrected. In some cases it may be possible to solve the problem with some adjustments; but more often than not, the theory will have to be reformulated entirely. Importantly, since the cold data will never admit any negotiations for a change of the veredict, the scheme does not allow any room for prominent figures or arbitrary opinions.

It is, however, even more important to understand, that the scientific method does by no means provide any mechanism to prove any theory right. There is indeed the very widespread and deeply rooted misconception (even among intellectuals and scholars in the humanities and social sciences), according to which there is something such as Science, representing humanity's accumulated well of wisdom, and there are certain facts, which have been "scientifically proven". Yet, nothing could be more misguided. Absolutely, the basic principle of the scientific method is that any theory can be deemed - but not be proven - valid, until it is proven false. Evidently, since the objective is to figure out how things work, if the theory's model's predictions fail, the theory is of no use and can be discarded. In other words, Science is not any kind of well of accumulated wisdom and there is anything such as scientifically proven fact, since how do we know, that some widely accepted theory today, will not be all of a sudden proven wrong tomorrow? For instance, we all thought Newton's (second) law was correct, until Einstein found it does not apply in all conditions. Now, in this particular case, since Newton's (seccond) law's predictions are basically accurate under regular circumstances, it is still widely used; but normally the theory would otherwise be tossed.

Still, if there is no mechanism to prove a theory right, how can we tell one theory is stronger than another? Indeed, if all theories can be  deemed valid until proven false, it should be reasonable to say that all theories are equally good, so long nobody has found any counterexample. Yes, I guess there are times, where we just cannot get what we want. Yet, while there is no objective mechanism to accurately measure and establish the fitness of a theory, the good news are it is still possible to make a fairly objective assessment of a theory's strength in comparison to another; namely, the theory's model should be as simple as possible. The key consideration is that we should not just build a model to replicate what we have already observed; but to generalize and predict what we will see in the future. Remember, we want to know how the thing works; don't we? In statistical learning terms, the model has to capture the structure of the data; rather than simply memorizing each and every data point (observation). If all what the model does is to take note of what should be the response to each of the examples it was trained with, the model is of little use. Indeed, if we "overfit the data" in such a way, the model will not generalize and, therefore, will not be able to make any prediction. For instance, there is little point in memorizing a multiplication table; if we do not extrapolate (generalize) and are therefore able to multiply any two numbers.

      

As a matter of fact, if we are allowed to have a model as complex as needed, it is actually rather easy to come up with a theory, which very accurately replicates our observations: we just need to define a new case for each and every example we observe. I am sure you have also noticed how well economist are always able to explain what happend yesterday in the stock exchange markets (or, for that matter, anything that has been observed on any date in the past). It is just for some really unfortunate reason, that they are never able to reliably predict what is going to happen tomorrow; which is really what we want, isn't it?

   

In this sense it is useful to consider the theory of Intelligent Design, which is falsely alleged to be a scientific version of Creationism. According to Intelligent Design, life or the Universe could not have arisen by chance; but must have been designed and created by some intelligent entity. As it can be seen from its very definition, the theory is conceived in counterposition to some other ideas or set of theories. It is certainly a very widespread and deeply rooted misconception to believe, that trashing someone else's theory will boost one's own theory's credibility. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth: fact of the matter is that, even if Darwin's Theory of Evolution were to be proven false, it would not add the tiniest bit to the validity of Intelligent Design or, for that sake, any other theory.. Yes, I could not care less if the other guys' theories fail to predict the markets' behavior; if you expect me to buy your theory, I exclusively want to know how accurate are your own forecasts. Absolutely, every theory has to be assess in its own terms. Of course, nobody is ever going to be able to prove that some intelligent creator does not exiss. In general terms, it is strictly impossible to disprove the existence of something, whatever we may fancy this to be: . For instance, just because nobody has yet found any flying, pink elephant, it does not mean that one day one will appear. Yet, at the end of the day, the scientific value of a theory is determined by its ability to make accurate predictions. Thus, who cares if nobody has ever found the tiniest flaw in any of your explanations of the stock exchange markets' past performance?:; if your theory does not make any projection into the future, there is simply no use to your theory. Indeed, Intelligent Design limits itself to explaining how did everything come into being; but does otherwise not give the slightest indication, as of what may happen in the future. Now, on the other hand, my friend, if your model is consistently able to predict the markets' behaviors, I would definitely be more than interested to buy your ideas. 

To make a long story short, the simpler a theory's model is, the greater its scientific value. It should therefore be easy to see, why we should try to explain the emergence of consciousness, without the huge assumption of the existence of a intelligent agent. If there is some voice or inner feeling unremittingly chewing over stuff in our head, it is certainly intuitive to think, that there must be some animated thing somewhere in there pondering our choices and driving our decisions. However, it is important to keep in mind, that just because it feels as if there is a pilot, it does not necessarily mean there is actually a pilot. Perhaps, it is just an autonomous vehicle. Just because a nation keeps a relationship of friendship with another, it does not necessarily mean there is any kind of animated body within the nation feeling any sort of friendship for the other polity. It will certainly be impossible to prove the inexistence of a intelligent agent; but it will basically be as futil to go in search of it, as well.

Even in the very unlikely scenario, where someone may be able to find such a intelligent agent,  - as much as the theory's proponents will celebrate to be proven right - the discovery would be of very little help, as it would add close to nothing to our practical knowledge. As a matter of fact, the reliance on the existence of a intelligent agent to explain our ability to reason, amounts to little more than sweeping the question under the rug.. Indeed, the theory provides an easy explanation to the eternal, burning conundrum of the emergence of consciousness; however, when we then ask next what led our intelligent agent to wake up and have such an aha moment, most likely the only answer we will ever be able to find is, that it simply chose so. This is when our best thinkers set out to define and elaborate on all the different types of human beings: the French, the English, the Hispanic, the Russian, the Chinese, the Christian, the Muslim, the Jew, men, women, the homosexual, the heterosexual, whites, blacks, the conservative, the progressive, the rich, the poor, etc.. Needless to say, each of these stereotypes have their very own peculiarities and tendencies to make certain choices and act in a given way. Still, at the end of the day, - considering that the emergence of ideas and intelligent conducts relies on the freaking intelligent, decision-making agent's light bulb going off - since we do not have a blooming clue how the intelligent agent's light bulb works (let alone the nuts and bolts of the damn agent thing), we are totally left in the dark on, how we may be able to elicit intelligent behavior. Yes, let us be honest, would it not be cool to find the switch that turns on the freaking light bulb? Indeed, for thousands and thousands of years we have been wishing and praying to God to send us a king with a vibrant, happy-go-lucky light bulb, when we might as well have focused on what policies and recipes have shown to lead to the nation's prosperity. Not everything is lost, though; at least we have a pretty good idea of all the different types of "intelligence; namely, spatial intelligence, logical and mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, emotional intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence and so much more.  

To make a long story short, if Human Agency is a theory's only answer to why something happened, it denies the whole concept of Science. In other words, as bluntly and severely as it may sound, a theory that explains everything through the assumption of the existence of a intelligent agent, does not have any scientific value; rather it is nothing but magical thinking reinvented and revisited.

If we enjoy so much to portray ourselves as intelligent and rational animals, we realy need to back our tedious full-of-ourselves boasting doing something more than just resorting on the assumption of a intelligent agent. to explain the origin of our "intelligence" and reasoning powers. If we allege Science to be the ultimate proof of our superior intellect, then it represents in itself nothing but a sheer oxymoron to approach this capital and essential question turning yet again to magical thinking, instead of scientific reasoning. At a minimum, we need to explore if, perhaps, we can do without any physical manifestation of our agency; but it is possible to explain the emergence of something like an animated voice from the cooperation and competition between populations of neurons. Perhaps it is possible to get the vehicle started up and to autonomously drive around, without the intervention of any pilot. Indeed, if the vehicle were a kingdom, it would be certainly logical  to think, that the king will determine his foreign policies guided by the friendship he feels for the other nations' sovergns. However, for instance, in a truly democratic society (that is, not the kind of  truly repugnant and evil spawn we nowadays call Democracy), the institution vested with the nation's sovereignty may vote to keep a relationship of friendship with other polities; but that would not mean there is any kind of feeling of friendship. Indeed, we may want to ask ourselves: how did Ancient Egyptians come to think of themselves as members of the nation of Egypt (even long after the Pharaoh had disappeared). For that sake, we may as well ask: how did the settlers of British North America come to think of themselves as citizens of the U.S.? Moreover, why did they take up arms to fight for their new nation's independence?

Without a doubt, the emergence of consciousness and reason is such a miraculous phenomenon, that it is only natural to come to believe it must have been an act of sheer magic. However, the study of self-organizing dynamic systems show, how some very basic rules of behavior operating in each of the hundreds, thousands or millions of units of a complex system's population, are enough to lead to the emergence of stable patterns of miraculously spectacular complexity and beauty. As a matter of fact, we do not need to look far and deep in the abstract world of theory. Modern human societies are probably the best proof of how massive populations of self-minded individuals competing against and cooperating with each other - much like the neurons in our brains - can and do evolve into patterns of incredible complexity (if anything, we only need to work a bit on the miraculous beauty part...).    

Moreover, we already saw, how a frog may be able to choose one item in today's menu, without any animated decision-making agent. Yet, admittedly, planning a course of action to drive a vehicle from Point A to Point B requires a little bit more, than just snapping at some fly. After all, for all the skills and talents God has most certainly gifted upon frogs, they have not yet been able to develop complex societies, featuring sophisticated institutions such as religions, political systems, journalism, literature, scientific research, health systems, etc. Perhaps, our froggy pal is able to show, that the technical skill involved in the act of snapping at a fly amount to the resolution of a complex system of differential equations; but, for one thing, it does not seem it should require the elaboration of a complex plan of action, of the sort, say, an artificial intelligence algorithm implements, in order to find how to move next in a chess game. Chess certainly involves the kind of intellectual skills commonly associated with human reasoning. Now, it would not be difficult to conceive a neural architecture implementing a chess strategy. Yet, Chess is not such a big deal.

Can you imagine how much more complicated it would be, if all the individual pieces in each type would not work exactly the same. Can you imagine how many more combinations it would be necessary to explore, if we had to account for all the specific peculiarities of each piece? Can you imagine how much more difficult it would be, if we had to consider, that, say, Knight Mario is actually pretty old and he may occasionally fail to defeat and capture the strongest of the opponent's pawns? Can you imagine how much uncertainty it would create, if the opponent's king may in some cases be a young and athletic guy and therefore be sometimes able to move more than just one square at a time?

Indeed, if Chess is so much easier is because everything is stereotyped. Now, that is exactly what we do, when we form a concept of something; namely, we extract the essence of how the 'thing' works, leaving the minor details aside, and keeping instead the important stuff. We then give the 'thing' a name and from that point on, whatever is 'recognized' as such, will be addressed and handled accordingly. Hence, it is not just a matter of mere efficiency, but concepts constitute the core of our sheer consciousness and ability to reason: Namely, if there are no concepts, there is altogether nothing to be conscious about. Definitely, we need to form concepts and give them names, in order to represent and simbolize our knowledge of the corresponding 'things'. If we do not have any concept of wrinkles, how are we going to represent the conscious knowledge, that "the wrinkles thing next to the outer corner of the eyes indicate a person's advanced aged"? How are we going to plan any chess strategy, if we do not have any concept of the chessboard and its 64 squares, or any of the 6 different types of pieces. Can you imagine how difficult it would be to write a cooking recipe, if we could not just assume that, for example, all eggs basically have the same properties, and any of them would do (work) to 

help bind ingredients, give volume to batter, emulsify liquids, thicken sauces, provide that distinct flavor, clarify liquids and even add a nice color or glaze?   

Consequently, if we want to build a model capable of any sort of rational thinking and strategic planning we come full circle to the previous question of, how are concepts formed? If we can figure out how do we form ourselves concepts of things; we would have all the components needed to build a neural model, where countless populations of neurons employ some abstract knowledge to achieve some goal far ahead into the future.

Since it seems utterly unsatisfactory to settle the matter with the bluntly simple explanation of some decision-making agent having an aha moment, and - given we are so smart - we agreed we can do better than that; we already made our "quest for the origin of concepts" difficult enough, that it would be wise of us to start with the simplest cases. Indeed, there are definitely many instances, where there is no mystery of what led us to form a concept of some 'thing'. In fact, in the great majority of the cases (though likely not always), it is somebody else, who teaches us some concept. Our mother is probably the person from whom we learn most of the stuff. She, for instance, is who taught us the concept of brotherhood. When we were little, she explained our siblings were not like any other people, but they were of a very special kind. Rather, our siblings loved us, cared for us and we could always count on them. Obviously, she expected us to love and care for them as well. Yes, mom has always wanted the family to be united.

     However, even if all our knowledge had come from mom or someone else, that would still not solve our question. Indeed, we would still be before a chicken-and-egg problem; namely, if we got it from mom, where did she got it from? It seems like, at the end of the day, someone must have had an aha moment. But then, when and how did that happen?

At this point, it may be helpful to ask, why do newborn babies cry? The question may sound rather silly, since obviously babies cry because they feel some need, that requires attention from somebody else. Now, if we assume the existence of a decision-making agent, it seems reasonable to consider, if, perhaps, there are times where the baby is just being manipulative. There are certainly instances, where one would swear that the baby is only crying for the sake of getting some love and attention. On the other hand, admittedly, the proponents of the decision-making agent line of thinking could bery reasonably argue that a newborn's screams are only an instinctive conduct, and it is just that, at some point in the baby's early life, its intelligent, decision-making agent will wake up. This second part of the argument certainly leaves very unclear what leads to the miraculous awakening of the intelligent agent; but, in any case, it is not at all far fetched to conjecture, that Evolution slowly wired up such a behavior in our brains: whenever the baby experienced some need (even if this is only emotional), the baby would instinctively start screaming. Those babies who developed such conduct would evidently enjoy an evolutionary edge, since those who did not would not receive proper attention and care, even in the direst of crises. Now, even if we accept that babies screams are (originally) just instinctive gestures, it is not lost on anybody, that at some point they become part of a manipulating scheme. There is indeed no doubt, that in many occasions a baby will start crying only to get a fancy. It may be a candy or a stuffed animal it has just totally fallen in love with. Since the baby will normally at that time barely be able to speak, it will franctically point to the thing to make its 'needs' clear. It is only that eventually mom will explain such manipulating attitudes are not OK!: "Sweetheart, if you want something, you politely ask for it; but do not just scream, because I will then definitely not buy it!" At the end of the day, as we all know, the baby will follow whichever conduct yields the desired prize. If mom does not follow through with her moral teachings and screams are all what the baby needs to get its way, it will continue repeating such attitude, until the day that it finally does not work anymore. 

In summary, life is so much easier as a newborn!: In those first weeks, since nobody can expect a newborn to know how to ask for things politely, - regardless of whether the newborn's cry expressed some real necessity, or only the wish for a fancy - everybody would run to attend its every desire. Hence, importantly, - regardless of whether the newborn's cry was an instinctive or concious behavior - we would have to agree that, for all intends and purposes, the baby successfully expressed its thoughts and transmitted its will. Furthermore, since everytime it cried everybody would run to fulfill all its desires, - regardless of whether its conduct had been originally instinctive or conscious - it will not be long before our little angel becomes 'aware', that screams are all the magic words it takes to get some prize. Indeed, if our sweetheart's crying began as an instinctive gesture and eventually developed into a (conscious) manipulating scheme, it is interesting to ask what led to such transition, or, if you so prefer, what led to the awakening of the baby's intelligent agent? Well, it stands to reason to say, that our sweetheart's brain, little by little, put together the connection between the crying gesture and the baby's needs being addressed. Alternatively, if you favor the intelligent agent line of thinking, I guess you can say the baby's decision-making agent had an aha moment; in fact, a truly fantastic one, indeed!, or is there anything better in life than a magical recipe to get everybody to do as you wish? From a scientific perspective, though, the moment should represent the formation of the first concept (in all likelihood the very first concept in a human's life): "'crying' is the thing that gets everybody to do as I wish". No doubt about it, Chess is so much easier when we are babies!: all what it takes to win is the king to cry a little. It is then too bad that it will not be long before Chess will soon get so much more complicated. Indeed, much to every baby's disappointment, such magical recipe will soon stop working, and it will become necessary to use some real, human-language words. Yet, how on Earth is our sweetheart going to learn to ask for things politely, if it does not know their names nor has formed any concept of them; but all what it has figured out so far, is to scream and point at the thing in question? Even worse, what if the baby is born to a world, where mom does not know any name nor has yet formed herself any concept of anything either?

   All over the globe, palaeontologists have found fascinating prehistoric figurative cave paintings, such as hand stencils and animal figures. To the degree that it seems reasonable to assume they were made without any clear purpose in mind, these representations are generally understood as pure expressions of art. However, it should not be totally off the wall to conjecture several different specific reasons, why prehistoric humans (not only homo sapiens, but other related species such as Neanderthals as well) may have actually wanted to paint these silhouettes: Perhaps, someone wanted to tell the group he or she had spotted a herd of buffalos,, so that they would all go together to hunt some. Another possibility is that these representations were part of some early form of primitive school lectures, where the instructor use the paintings to teach the name of things to the pupils. Fascinatingly, view in this (very peculiar) light, prehistoric cave paintings could very reasonably be seen as the earliest expressions of writing (after all, the first writing systems began with the employment of clay tokens to count and record goods).

Now, obviously, all these ideas on the possible purpose of prehistoric figurative cave paintings are most absolutely purely speculative, and there is clearly no way anybody could ever bring forward any evidence to ascertain, what the heck was going through the author's mind. Nevertheless, even if we accept that these representations were nothing but pure expressions of art, made without any kind of purpose in mind, there is still something there cannot be any doubt about. Indeed, in any event, we could still say with absolute certainty, that the painter was thinking about the figure in question (whether this was a hand, some animal or anything else). Consequently, even if the author had no intention and the painting had no purpose, for all intends and purposes the author transmitted his or her thought. But, is not the transmission of thoughts what language is all about? Indeed, we can extend the reasoning further: Even if the gesture had been totally unintentional, it would not have taken a rocket scientist to realize, that, from here on out, whenever someone wanted to transmit some thought or piece of information, sketching some figure on a surface was an excellent means to accomplish such goal.

As a matter of fact, it is then not difficult to see a reason why our understanding of the world is so predominantly shaped by the visual modality. Undoubtedly, we learn from other people most of what we know about the world around us. But, clearly, long before we can understand any word anybody says, we can see and perceive everything around us. Long before we are aware of any name, we know perfectly well how everything looks like: all what we need is someone to tell us what is the name, we should from then on recognize the thing by. If we barely understand any language (as when we are babies, or as it would have been the case for a primitive person living tens of thousands of years ago) the most straightforward way for someone to teach us a name is by pointing at the thing and indicating what is the right term commonly used to refer to it. From then on, whenever somebody says that word, at the very least, we will know, we will have a concept of, how that thing looks like. Without a doubt, if we have not yet found out, it will not be long before we also add to our knowledge, what is the thing good for.

Yes, it makes sense to say, that concepts are created or acquired, when they get a name; but we should not forget that names are only the means, not the ends. Indeed, the point here is not to learn the name of things; but to know what are they good for. So far we may have found out, how to refer to things; but we have not yet really accomplish anything, let alone learned how things work. Put in a different way, a language is not of much use, if it only consists of nouns. Rather, we need adjectives, verbs, adverbs and prepositions, as well.

Undoubtedly, the most common method to learn how to accomplish something, is to observe somebody else carrying out the task, and then imitate that person's performance. In fact, unless the matter is of the kind that confers any power, we can be sure that our role model will love to show off his or her knowledge and will not hesitate to explain how to go about it. If anything, teaching would havve been quite a bit of a challenge before humans developed any full-fledged language.

It would be useful to imagine how a primitive mother could have taught her kid, how to prepare some food; let us say, some bread. Even more so if there had not been any language available, the most natural and effective way would certainly have been to showcase the process herself. Now, how would you go about it, if you want to show a recipe to someone, who does not speak your language? Even more, what if (much like our primitive mother) you would not speak yourself any full-fledged language? Probably, as you go through the steps, you would point at things and indicate the terms you will employ to refer to them. When it comes to the actions you perform along the way (such as grinding, mixing, kneading, spreading, roasting, etc.), there is, though, no need to say anything. I guess there is a reason, why it is usually a bit harder to remember the right verb commonly employed to describe the specific gesture. However, if you just cannot come up - or simply do not know - the right term, you will frequently utter some sound resembling the noise the action in question produces (for example, wash, hack, stir, bubble, etc.). In all likelihood, that is exactly what our primitive cooking instructor would have done.

Clearly, through experiences of this sort, humans in the past should have come up with - and humans in the present commonly learn - the names of all kinds of things, as well as acquired knowledge on how to accomplish stuff. In other words, humans in the past conceived or defined most of the concepts known today, so that hundreds or thousands of years later we only need someone else to teach them to us. Clearly, the wheel only had to be invented once. From then on, once it got a name, and everybody could see what is good for and how it works, the knowledge only had to be transmitted and spread over, from one generation to another, to all other folks.

As it can be seen, nothing here is to say, there has never been any so-called "aha moments"; but there is absolutely no reason, why we can be at all certain, they are the result of the genius of a intelligent, decision-making agent inside our brains. Rather, it is perfectly possible to conceive a scientific model, which - without the assumption of the existence of such a intelligent agent - exhibits the exact same self-conscious behavior; but explains much better all other data and conducts, as well as makes verifiable predictions. A key consideration for the viability of such a model of the brain is the degree of randomness exhibited by neurons. Namely, no neuron will ever react in exactly the same way to exactly the same input. Thus, it should not be of any surprise, that under the exact same circumstances, we never act in exactly the same way. To begin with, the circumstances are never exactly the same. We are constantly exploring, trying something new; perhaps we do not have other choice: perhaps we currently do not have available the preferable ingredient, prehaps the safest crossing is today not traversable. Even when we know, what is exactly that we have to do to accomplish our aim, and have all intention to follow to the letter the good, old plan, we never proceed in exactly the same way: we never apply the exact same force, we never go as fast or as carefully, we never do it under the same conditions, etc. Consequently, the end result is never exactly equal. The whole purpose of the brain is then to extract conclusions of every new experience, in order to optimize our interactions with the world outside: if the end result came to be a significant surprise, we will want to know what let to such a startling outcome. Needless to say, if the experience ended up in success, it would only be smart to repeat it in the future, whereas if it was a failure, we should avoid following that path next time. In other words, our brain will try to remember and go through everything that happened, and make changes accordingly: in grossly simplified terms, those neurons, whose vigorous activity contributed to a successful outcome, will be reinforced; whereas those which lead to failures will be repressed. These adaptations will not only modify our subsequent reasonings, but even more so our instinc; it is just that, obviously, we will only be conscious of the manner in which our reasonings has changed. We can think of these changes in our reasonings as modifications to the concepts maintained in our 'consciousness-accessible' knowledge base: If brown eggs and white eggs produce the exact same results, we will come to think of them as the same thing. If we start experiencing hallucinations after taking some mushrooms, we will look for visual, olfactory or tactile cues to help us differentiate them from other mushrooms, which do not cause such psychedelic effects. If you accumulate enough practice, you will get some intuition, that stirring vigorously avoids unwanted lumps in your mashed potatoes, until (not unlike the scientific method prescribes) you finally think of putting the hypothesis to a test and acquire conscious knowledge of the trick. Hence, regardless of how exactly it happens, what are the neural underpinnings involved or how we want to call it ("confirmation of a hypothesis", "realization" or "aha moment"), all these moments, where we confirm some intuition, mark the transition to where a piece of knowledge enters our 'consciousness-accessible' knowledge base, we gain awareness of it, and it becomes available to our reason.

 

We can therefore start to elucidate the origin of reason, as a mechanism whereby the organism could learn sequence of actions to attain a certain goal. Our instinct is really good and reliable at learning associations; but sometimes there is not quite a straightforward link between precursor an goal. Indeed, there is nothing in a bunch of wheat screaming: "You can make some bread out of me, by following these steps!" Rather, it generally takes some playing before achieving some reward from a given starting state. Thus, if you ever hit the jackpot, it will only make sense to try to reconstruct the sequence of actions, which led to such fantastic outcome. What milestones did we go through? How did we traverse from one to the next? The problem is that everything in real life is unique, and each milestone will never appear exactly identical as the first time, nor will we ever be able to make the transition between two consecutive milestones in the exact equal fashion. But, hey!, for exactly that reason we build ourselves concepts, didn't we!? Indeed, the current instance may be slightly different, but so long it represents the same concept, it will work basically the same, and by applying the rules we have acquired about such a concept, we will yield equivalent results. Until now, you may have got some intuition as of whether a person's smile is genuine or not; but, from now on you know a technique, with which (assuming my trick is correct) you will be able to tell (for any person, regardless of sex, race, age, etc.), whether a smile is genuine or not, by looking for wrinkles next to the outter corner of the eyes. In other words, now you are familiar with the concept of genuine-smile wrinkles.

Consequently, the moment where a concept enters our 'consciousness-accessible- knowledge base and we gain awareness of it, represents in practical terms the point in time from which said concept becomes available to be used in our complex plans (that is, the sequences of actions we routinely put together, in order to achieve our goals). Now, it is interesting to consider, what does this entail? If, as represented by our intuition, a piece of knowledge was already there (albeit only unconsciously), what leads to said knowledge to now becoming available to our consciousness? From all the discussion above, it  stands to reason to say, that the answer is very much related to the moment the given concept gets a name. Indeed, a concept's name seems to work as the key of a database, or the index of an incyclopedia, indicating the page, where all the information relative to said concept can be found. Thus, absent of such a key, such knowledge cannot be accessed.

Interestingly, there is all reason to believe, that these are the same keys delivered by the recognition process. If this is correct, the recognition of an external body from some perceptual cues represents the activation of all the information contained in the corresponding Encyclopedia's entry. Continuing this reasoning, (as argued at the beginning of this discussion) our brain's perceptual systems do not construct a comprehensive and detailed description of our surroundings (as advocated by Biederman and others). Rather, it would be more accurate to view the process, as if the perceptual systems would be typing on the Encyclopedia's keyboard: Namely, as the focus of attention is shifted from one perceptual stimulus to the next, everytime an external body gets recognized, the corresponding key will be pressed on the keyboard. Thus, if we look around and see a cup of tea sitting on a table; the code that will be generated would be something like: a cup of tea on a table.

    

Now, it may cause some confusion, that all until now, I have been talking of a 'consciousness-accessible- knowledge base, and, all of a sudden, I start referring to, what seems to be the same thing, under the name of Encyclopedia. So far, I have been employing the term 'consciousness-accessible- knowledge base in counterposition to the wisdom - we accumulate over time from practical experience -, which is not directly accessible to our consciousness. On the other hand, Encyclopedia refers to the knowledge - we normally acquire through reasoning, other people's teachings and theoretical study -, which we typically associate to our conscious knowledge. In order to make this point clearer, it may be useful to consider the example of an experienced master chess player. Clearly, somebody whoe has spend infinite hours playing Chess, will only need to take a look at a given position, in order to know, to get a very strong intuition , whether said position is advantageous or not. In contrast, an inexperienced player will have to try hard to look ahead, by exploring all possible combinations, in order to make up his mind on how to move next. This is not to say that our chess master will not use his reason while playing Chess, though. Without a doubt, throughout his long experience, he has analyze each and every game and spent endless hours trying to fathom out, what led to defeat or what were the keys for success. Neither would it make any sense to sustain that a chess master does not use any expert conscious knowledge; but only determines his moves out of the (unconscious) wisdom he accumulated from experience. Certainly, he will know by heart many standard sequences of movements, such as openings, how to check-mate his opponent from certain end-game positions, etc.. Furthermore, the kind of (conscious) reasoning an inexperienced chess player could follow to look ahead his next move, does not only employ his reason, but will obviously never be possible without all the processing being carried out unconsciously. In any case, what appears hardest to argue is that someone could be considered to have a superior brain, just because he or she has spent infinite hours studying and playing Chess, or, as it would be my case, takes each an every time two hours to mull over his next move. The crucial factor is always the amount of energies one is willing to invest. In fact, any such intellectual superiority would not reflect on any other task, until a similar effort is made. While it seems clear that unconscious wisdom results from lots of experience and practice, an analogous argument can be made about reason. Indeed, every brain is endowed with the very same mechanism, whereby one may mull over one's experiences and try to fathom out causes for the observed outcomes, as well as later put in effect the recipes one may have so found out or acquired from someone else. Furthermore, it does not make any sense to attribute more value to conscious knowledge over (unconscious) wisdom, as we have been indoctrinated to think since beginning of Civilization. For instance, just because you could not spell out with words how to distinguish a genuine smile from a fake smile, does not make you more stupid than if you could. To begin with, you probably are better off following your own instinct to tell a fake smile, than using my trick.

In fact, the observation that there is (unconscious) wisdom - which cannot be expressed with words - and conscious knowledge - which can be expressed with words - evidences that the purpose of our reason is to figure out recipes to achieve a certain goal, and our conscious thinking represents the execution of such sequences of actions. For instance, if we are not able to produce a written explanation as of how to distinguish a male voice from a woman's voice, it is because we never followed any sequence of actions in order to solve this task; that is, we never learned any kind of sequence of actions, that we could later follow to tell between men's voices and women's voices. Now, there is likewise a very simple reason, why we have never learned any such sequence of actions: Namely, we lack, we never formed ourselves, the sort of auditory concepts necessary to build a sequence of actions of that kind. Indeed, it stands to reason that these sequences of actions - which represent the basis of our conscious behaviors -, consists in lists of steps to traverse from an initial state to a final state. Furthermore, each step itself becomes in turn defined by the action to be executed, as well as the specifications of the states at the beginning and the end of the step. Now, interestingly enough, while states can be spelled out with nouns, adjectives and prepositions; actions, on the other hand, can be spelled out with verbs and adverbs. I have no doubt, that computer scientists (especially object-oriented programmers) will most definitely recognize a depiction of this sort: Namely, natural (human) language is (as a form of lingua franca) the self-generated, self-learned (object-oriented) programming language utilized by the brain, concepts are encapsulations of such natural-language-coded specifications, and the sequences of actions, which represent the basis of our conscious behaviors, are nothing but scripts or, in computer science terms programs written in natural language.

It then follows that in order to form a concept, it becomes necessary to give it a name and spell it out with words. Furthermore, if we accept that sequences of actions are coded in natural language, if 'a thing' cannot be expressed with words, it obviously cannot be referenced in a sequence of actions script. It would, for example, not make any sense if a step of a script would read something like: "Add a cup of 'the thing" to the mixture. The connection of conscious thinking and language is in fact so tight that even arithmetic 'recipes' need to be conducted in our mother tongue. This is particularly evident in counting: someone may be perfectly fluent in a second language; but, when it comes to counting, we all resort to the language we were raised on. 

Now, you would be right to ask, what if we choose to give a name to a thing, that we cannot spell out with words? It would only make sense to say, that we would not be able to form ourselves a concept of the thing. Since, it has a name, it could be referenced in a sentence; but it would not make any sense, as if a recipe states: "Add a cup of gniht to the mixture". Consequently, although it may sound odd, I guess it would be fair to say, that we do not have a concept of what is a man's voice or a woman's voice. Certainly, we have a concept of what is a man and what is a woman, as well as what is a voice. We would then be able to explain, that a woman's voice is a voice belonging to a woman and a man's voice is a voice belonging to a man; but that is as far as we can go.

The argument pales a little, however, if the question is, whether we have a concept of a woman's face and a man's face. We are not able to spell out, how does a woman's voice or a man's voice sounds like; but we would  be able to sort of spell out, how a woman's face or a man's face looks like. Indeed, albeit not quite precisely, we could describe a woman's face and a man's face, and how one differentiates from the other, in terms of basic visual concepts such as circles, triangles, curves, straight lines, etc..      

Hence, it would probably be more accurate to say, that we can artificially create concepts, by giving names to things; but they will remain meaningless and so useless, to the degree to which we are not able to spell them out with words. This is frequently the case with abstract concepts, which we are taught by other people. As abstract concepts, they are not backed by any personal perceptual experience, and there is therefore not a good way to discern, whether the explanation provided by the other person, as of how the thing works is correct or not. Nowadays, in the modern society of ours, where human knowledge has grown esoterically complex and sophisticated, and we need again and again upper-class experts to explain everything to us, the examples of this are countless: Let us begin with the "freedom" grotesque. In our fake-Democracy world of "freedom", we are told to be free to do whatever we want; however, in reality, the way it works is that only those with a buttload of money will be actually free to do and get whatever they want (e.g. the best education, the best health care, even a get-out-of-jail card from a powerful attorney). Another good one is intelligence, supposedly, the gift whereby the blessed ones constantly, magically come up with brilliant ideas; however, in practice it turns out that intelligent is only whoever has a buttload of money (obviously, your ideas must not have been very brilliant, if they did not make you much money), regardless of the fact, that it was actually mom and dad, who empowered the kid with all the opportunities to succeed in life. Yet, probably the best example is fake-Democracy, which we have all been indoctrinated to believe is the least worse of all political systems, because, supposedly, we all have an equal say on the government of the land; but, in reality, the way it works is, that the upper-class controlled mass-Media - always so jealous and vigilant of the utmost morality and propriety - keeps a hawk-eye on the certainly despicable political class, in order to ensure that no one ever even thinks of changing the most repugnant of all systems, where the wealthiest families amass all the opportunities to perpetuate themselves on top of everybody else.   

The question of whether a concept is formed or not is therefore more philosophical than scientific. After all, probably the most salient quality of the brain is its prodigious robustness in coping with uncertainty. Hence, we will be better able to comprehend the internal dynamics of the brain (especially when it comes to such abstract and fluid concepts as memory and knowledge), if we   refrain ourselves from thinking in clear-cut, black-and-white terms, but likewise allow the same smooth spectrum of shades of gray in our terminology. Obviously, concepts do not have any physical manifestation, and we therefore cannot speak about their existence in the same terms as we do about physical bodies. Concepts are instead abstract ideas. Now, if we consider that 'idea' is a synonym for 'concept', this explanation is not very helpful; however, we will obtain more information, if we consider that 'idea' also means a possible course of action. Indeed, a concept represents information on a possible course of action. Consequently, the degree to which a concept exists is determined by how helpful such information is.

Indeed, the scientific approach is not to agonize ourselves over what is a concept, but how do concepts work. In that sense, what really matters to us here is that concepts code in natural language (and so spell out with words) our knowledge on how a given thing works. Furthermore, we can conceive our conscious knowledge as an encyclopedia, which, conceptually speaking, is in turn made up of two basic components: a dictionary and an all-purpose recipe book. This break-down, however, does in no way imply any physical manifestation, as there is all reason to believe, that the data is intermingled. The depiction is instead meant to signify all the information maintained by our conscious knowledge base; namely, what are all the things which exist in our world, how do they relate with each other, how do they work and how can they be used to achieve our goals. Importantly, natural language is the medium employed to represent this information. In other words, the purpose of our (conscious knowledge) Encyclopedia is to maintain a natural language record of the details on how things work; so that we may be able to apply such knowledge to attain some distant goal. Hence, given that associations are learned unconsciously and our unconscious wisdom represents how perceptual patterns relate to each other, it would be reasonable to say, that our encyclopedia is to the things in this world, what our unconscious wisdom is to perceptual patterns. Indeed, our encyclopedia  constitutes a typification layer (as a form of higher-level of abstraction software layer) sitting on top of our unconscious wisdom of perceptual-patterns associations. This 'higher-level of abstraction' edifice then sets up in turn the basis for our conscious thoughts. Indeed, in simplified terms, we can think of consciousness as the verbalization of the language and coding scheme employed by the brain to understand and code how the world works, and subsequently apply the learned knowledge to elaborate plans of actions aimed at optimizing the interaction with our environment. 

In other words, Consciousness will emerge as higher-level, more abstract information on the outside world is extracted and (as a form of lingua franca) a new general universal coding scheme develops, which can be generally applied to the execution of any task. Thus, we can similarly imagine conscious thinking, as the process followed by a judge (a true judge, that is, not the kind of really repugnant individuals, who systematically take common, self-represented citizens for a ride in the crooks system of our evil and no-less repugnant fake-Democracy), as it goes through a legal codification system, in order to find the best way of action in response to a given situation. Indeed, the purpose of a codification system is to create some sort of legal edifice, where - in addition to naming and describing - all the countless situations encountered in the past are typify in standard types, akin to our consciousness' system of concepts. THe role of the true judge is then to go through all the typified scenarios and find the best match to the present case. Now, in the repugnant fake-Democracy crooks system, the judges are given ample discretion, so that the crook's ruling can be molded to conform to the Big-Man's attorney's dictate. However, in theory, not only are we all equal to the law, but the law should as well apply equally to all, regardless of one's wealth or social status. Consequently, the court's actuation should conform to what judisprudence prescribes; that is, the actuation - clean of any crook's crooked interpretation - should be what past experience has taught will yield the best results for the whole. In other words, in theory, no room is allowed to any top-down decision-making agent's discretion; but the process follows a bottom-up competition for the best-match to the present case. Nevertheless, not unlike our dear froggy pal, for all intends and purposes, a choice has been made

Needless to say, however, the brain's actual operation is always far more complicated than simply following a codification system. To begin with, such a "codification system" must first be learned, which is probably the hardest and most miraculous part. Moreover, very often there is not any direct mapping from our current state to a certain desired state; but a serpentine path will have to be traversed, involving a plethora of steps, and there will not be a standard recipe available to solve the problem. 

 

Exactly in order to address this specific issue, the brain evolved a new mechanism, which we can very well call reason. Yes, reason is not an intelligent decision maker; but a mechanism which developed as language empowered our brain to represent, keep a record and transmit all the information regarding how things relate to the achievement of our goals, and then employ such knowledge to elaborate complex plans. For that purpose, however, concepts first needed to be formed. As discussed in earlier sections, concepts are mental abstractions constructed by our brain, in order to code plans of action. As stated previously, consciousness will thus emerge as these building blocks become available, and (as a form of lingua franca) a new general universal coding scheme develops, which will then be generally applied to the elaboration and execution of complex plans by our reasoning and planning mechanism. It is important to understand, however, that the elaboration of these plans is a process, which not only involves our consciousness. Rather, not unlike the construction of our conceptual abstractions, significant portions of it are carried out unconsciously.

 

To illustrate this point, and by way of conclusion of all the above,we can best summarize the interplay between conscious and unconscious processes in the brain, by considering an all-complicated Chess-like game, where - aside from some very basic wired-in structures we get from birth - nothing is really known nor can be assumed. Indeed, let us imagine a Chess-like game, where all the pieces look differently, there is no indication as of how each of them behave and what rules of conduct they follow, and we even ignore that the field is organized in 64 squares and movements are restricted to these discrete positions. In fact, we are not even informed, that ultimate success will be achieved the moment we capture the opposing side's king. Rather, we will have to figure out all this knowledge through experience, as we play one game after another. The point here, with this exercise, is that the pursuit of any goal - whether this is explaining something to another person, fighting a dialectic or physical battle, driving a system to a certain desired state, or simply finding a route from Point A to Point B - can be framed as a search for the optimal sequence of actions in a game tree (as defined in combinatorial game theory). Now, the brain's job - namely driving the individual towards success in life - is, without a doubt, the most complicated and hardest of all. Indeed, - aside from some very basic wired-in conducts - we come to this world not knowing anything, let alone how to find happiness in life.

As discussed in earlier sections, either somebody teaches us how things work, or we will form ourselves our own concepts through experience, by playing with things. We will so learn, that there are actually six distinct types of pieces in the game (pawns, knights, bishops, rooks, queen and king), each of these piece types has its own rules on what sort of movements it can perform, the placements of the pieces are restricted to the 64 squares on the board, etc.. Once we have form ourselves an idea of how things work, we are in a better condition to plan our moves, in order to achieve a certain goal. More often than not, however, there will not be an obvious path and it may be a good idea to break down the problem in smaller tasks, each aime at some milestone. This subdivision will be conducted consciously, by means of our conscious knowledge Encyclopedia. We may not be able to check-mate our opponent from the current position, but perhaps it is possible to capture a pawn or some other minor piece. If no easy prey can be identified, an expert chess player will at least know, that his chance to triumph will be greatly improve, if he dominates the central positions of the board. Alternatively, perhaps, from all the associations we have learned from experience, our instinct may be able to suggest some subgoal, which is likely to lead us to whatever objective we have now in mind. Who knows? our instinct may smell one of our opponent's pieces' blood in the water. In any event, all these ideas are continuously competing against each other for deeper consideration; that is, how can each of these milestones in turn be attained? We may be aware of some recipe to achieve the next subgoal, but our instinct will likewise dig into our wisdom of learned associations, looking for some suggestion. In Chess, this means considering what could be our next move. If we are instead writing an explanation, our instinct will look for the right set of words to express the current idea. Again, all the hypotheses entertained by our mind are in continuous competition against each other. Needless to say, the more practice we have accumulated and wiser we are on the specific subject, the stronger our intuition will be; that is, good suggestions will rise immediately, and little time will be wasted with unpromising alternatives before the competition is called good. Often, however, the first idea that pops up is not that convincing and we may want to look ahead a few more movements in our chess game, or scratch a little deeper in our wisdom of learned associations for a better set of words to spell out our idea. Alternatively, we may not feel like making the extra effort and instead just accept whatever we got. Needless to say, this decision is taken consciously; which, however, does not mean that it requires the existence of a decision-making agent. Rather, we can think of three factors, which may determine how to proceed: namely, how convincing is the answer found so far, how much time and energies do we have available to make an additional effort, and how feasible and how much importance do we give to the achievement of the pertinent goal. People is woefully misguided, when they say that Ph.D.'s are very smart; rather, we are just stubborn motherfuckers, who never give up until we attain a convincing solution. Finally, once we settle on a plan for the current milestone, we move on to focusing our attention on to the next, until we ultimately reach our final objective.

As game theory shows, a mechanism of this kind would be able to find a path from a starting point A, to a distant and unrelated desired state B, or, in more concrete terms for our subject here, , a plan of action to achieve an arbitrary goal. Evidently, any species endowed with such a skill will enjoy an extraordinary evolutionary edge. Now, as evidenced by genetic algorithms, Nature's survival-of-the-fittest law is nothing but an incredibly powerful optimization process, especially well suited for very difficult and complicated problems, where little or no information (such as, for example, the objective function's derivatives) is available and local minima are ubiquitous. THe law is as simple as it can get: those species implementing the best strategies prevail, whereas those which do not die off and disappear. Consequently, it is safe to conclude, that the species alive at the present time are following the strategies best adapted for the environment's conditions as of yesterday. This does not mean, however, that there is a single optimal strategy. Rather, the robustness of the natural selection optimization process to local minima is due to the simple principle, according to which a species' strategy is good enough, so long it passes the test of survival. Needless to say, species based their strategies on countless possible peculiarities, such as the ability to fly, the endurance to arid terrains, incredibly reproduction rates, etc. Obviously, human beings' Chief approach has been to optimize the interaction with the world, by learning how things relate to each other. Now, whereas opposing poles come close one to another, equal poles repel each other. This is to say that, to the extent that they seek and depend on the same resources, those species occupying the same niche will fight the fiercest competition against each other. Then, yes, those which do not perform optimally, are very likely to lose and disappear sooner or later. Consequently, given that our strategy had been to optimize our interaction with our environment, - in case our own personal mental perception would not constitute sufficient evidence, we have all reasons to think that, throughout time, we evolve to exploit to the fullest our ability to learn associations between things, to the point of coming to develop and perfect a mechanism, whereby the individual would be able to elaborate some complex plan of action, leading to the attainment of some arbitrary goal. Whether we like it or not, however, given the extreme complexity of the brain, it is not at all realistic to think that, from its mere observation and study, anyone will anytime soon be able to figure out the exact details of how such complex plans of action are put together.. As a matter of fact, it is far more useful to show how it is possible to do away of the assumption of a magical decision-making agent, and, instead, a massively Parallel-and-Distributed-Processing network of neurons cooperating with, and competing against, each other could generate the appropriate sequence of actions, in order to accomplish a given goal. If a model of this sort then exhibits the same behavior as the brain and successfully predicts future observations; it would all be too much of an unbelievable coincidence, that significantly different implementations of our reasoning and planning functionalities would yield equal results. Indeed, in order to optimize our odds of accurately modeling the brain, the most effective and promising approach is to devise an optimal strategy carrying out the brain function in question.

As a matter of fact, the search for the nature of our reasoning and planning mechanism is, paradoxically enough, greatly simplified by the constraints the investigation is subject to. First, as any other brain function, it obviously needs to be implementable by a neural architecture. Thus, the specific algorithm should not rely on, for instance, complex mathematical operations such as derivatives, integrals, etc.; but must be restricted to simple computations. More importantly, however, no assumptions can be made on the problem to be reasoned out; but whatever goal we want to pursue, the same mechanism should be able to generate a plan to accomplish it. Now, in order to figure out a sequence of actions leading to a certain desired target, at each step along the path, one way or another, it will have to be determined what action will in turn be executed. Clearly, this is no different than conducting the sort of game-tree search outlined above. The exact details of the specific computations performed by the neurons in our brain, in order to implement such a tree search are then in actuality of no more relevance, than the exact details of the specific algorithm a smartphone may utilize in order to recognize faces.       

THe crucial takeaway of the mechanism described above is that the generated sequence of actions opens the door to many fascinating opportunities. Obviously, it is the availability of this sequence what will make it possible to trace back our steps and analyze in detail, which were the keys of the successful outcome, or, alternatively, where is that things started going down the drain. To the degree that there was any rationale behind the selection of a given action along the way, not only will we be able to explain why such choice was made, but we could also tell why other alternatives were discarded. As a logical consequence of this, we can now put ourselves into our opponent's shoes and likewise argue, what is wrong about what he or she said or did. Yes, since there is a sequence of actions describing in natural language all the series of steps, that have to be followed in order to attain a certain goal; our miraculous ability to spell out our reasonings, all of a sudden, does no longer need the invocation of any magic.

Fact of the matter is such a sequence of actions connecting an initial state to a desired goal represent nothing less than a causality link between these two points, regardless of how far apart from each other they may be. We then definitely start getting some really strong insight of how powerful it is our ability to express with words a path from Point A to Point B. 

For instance, I certainly wish I had been able to spell out what were the actual reasons, why Alia had broken up with me in South Africa.. Everybody kept telling me that I should accept, that Alia had simply stopped loving me. However, if, during the previous months, Alia had provided clear signs that she cared for me, I knew that it did not make any sense, that in a matter of just a few weeks, she had simply, magically stopped loving me. I knew there was a reason; but, much to my frustration and regret, for the life of me I was just not able to spell it out. 

Agonizingly enough, it was really not that difficult to figure out; Alia had made it transparent the very moment she informed me of her decision. She explained in no uncertain terms, that "she was leaving me because she was sick of dragging me around the supermarkets". In case that had left any doubts, during the following months she would further spit out, that I was rather useless, had never really loved her, but had only used her as my servant and chauffeur. THe explanation that Alia had stopped loving me, because she had reached the conclusion that I was useless, for some reason, just was not convincing, though. What kind of love is it, if it dies off the moment the "loved" person becomes useless? Love does not work like that. Clearly, if one stops loving another person just because he proves to be hopeless, that is not love in the first place. Now, anybody who knew Alia during the years of our marriage would be able to tell you, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Alia truly loved me. If you are still not quite sure about it, you can just read Alia's letters and I promise you all your doubts will be dissipated. That definitely could not be said about Alia; if she loved me it had not been because she had made some cold calculation of how useful I may be for her, and, consequently, it could not be reasoned out that she had stopped loving me, the moment she reached the conclusion that I was useless. Alia's explanation could have only been an excuse, some sort of cover-up for the real reason. 

As a matter of fact, it was as self-evident as transparent that she had fallen in love with Gary (our Land Rover mechanic in Cape Town). Then, it was straightforward to argue that, if she had fallen in love with another man, it was precisely because previously she had fallen out of love with me. Yet, I knew for a fact that such an alternative account was itself not without its own flaws. To begin with, anybody who met us in Cape Town would have sworn that we truly loved each other. Gary himself would eventually point out to me how "solid" we were. In fact, given that he never had any real interest in Alia, if he set out to conquer her, it was not because she was an easy prey. Rather, the fact that she loved me made the challenge all so much more engrossing. Moreover, Alia did not break down when Gary finally dropped the axe and dismissed her advances; but all the evidence points to the fact, that she collapsed when she arrived at the conclusion that she had killed her marriage. Indeed, Alia did not attempt to take her life after finding out that Gary did not really care for her; but after running away from our conversation on the beach two days later. Alia had come to the beach that afternoon, hoping that I would tell her that it had not all been her fault, but I had also made mistakes. Yet, considering her betrayal and her humiliating words on my disability, it did not feel to me that was the time for self-criticism; so I responded reminding her about all the times, that she had been mean to me. I did not know then, but Alia had come heartbroken to the beach, hoping to hear that I still loved her. It is true, it was actually not my love what she really cared about; but her marriage. Nevertheless, from my resentful response she concluded that, evidently, I would never be able to love her again as much as she needed and her marriage was dead. She ran away before I could finish talking, and left me stranded that night on the beach. When I was finally able to find my way back the next day, her cassanova playboy told me, that Alia had tried to commit suicide that previous night. Alia would later go as far as blaming me for her attempt of suicide, by saying that, on that day on the beach, I had taken her to a place lower than she had ever experienced. While I find her words extremely unjust (I never even went any farther than very calmly expressing my grievances), it leads me to argue, if she did not care for me, why did she cared so much about anything I had to say? Furthermore, if she did not care for me anymore, why did she always tried to conceal the fact that she had fallen in love with another man, and instead gave me the meanest of all explanations, the one that would defined her in the worst possible way: namely, she was leaving me because she was sick of the burden my disability represented for her? Last but not least, why from then on would she always need me so badly to take some responsibility for our marriage's failure? Long story short, it is not just that it was not without flaws the theory, according to which Alia had all of a sudden, magically stopped loving me. Rather, the theory simply did not make any sense, as it was flawed in every way possible.   

On the other hand, it is an undisputable fact that a fundamental component of Gary's conquest strategy had been to hammer into Alia's mind the notion, that she deserved so much more than a "fucking blind guy". Indeed, all indications point to the conclusion, that Alia's decision to break up with me was, as she would repeatedly explain, motivated to a significant degree, by the limitations my disability imposed upon me. I know, I know, it is certainly against everything we have always been told about love to even entertain the idea, that someone's love may be influenced by how much he or she may get out of the relationship. That is definitely not what we call love. Yet, whether or not it is in compliance with our global concept of how the world works, it is likewise true, that, as any man knows well, unless a woman is herself homeless, the probability that she may fall in love with a homeless man, in a scale from 10 to 0, can be estimated at about -7.

Yes, our conceptual framework may not always be necessarily correct. This is the critical weakness of our reasoning mechanism. Given that our logical inferences are based on our concepts of how things work, if such knowledge happens to be flawed, our reasonings will get exponentially nonsensical. As a matter of fact, as Civilization has slowly gained a tighter grip on our minds, we find that, more and more, not everything is quite as it has been taught to us. Probably the most pernicious and pervasive of our myths is the seemingly innocuous, baseless assumption of the existence of a decision-making agent. Certainly, is there anybody out there, who does not wholeheartedly embrace the notion, that deep inside our brain there is some sort of magical agent, responsible for all our reasonings and subsequent choices? Now, if that is the case, it is only natural to reason, that some people are born gifted with a extraordinarily intelligent brain, whereas most other folks only got a water-down version of the thing, some people is really talented, whereas other folks are kind of dull, some people's decision-making agent is truly virtuous, whereas some other folks' decision-making agent's moral standards are a bit looser. Furthermore, it is likewise only natural to reason, that those gifted with an intelligent, talented and virtuous decision-making agent (you see, for these chosen ones, all the stars coincidentally always come into PERFECT alignment) will throughout their lives come to amass a buttload of money; which inn turn means that those who do not have a penny only owe their poor state of affairs to the fact, that their decision-making agent is not just rather dumb, but indolent and morally lacking as well (you see, as it turns out, for these destitute folks, all the stars also fall into alignment, albeit obviously in a far more dramatic fashion). Now, given all the previous, it is only natural to embrace our fake-democratic oligarchic ideology, according to which, for instance, our health care services should be meant for those talented, conscientious, beautiful people, who own the buttload of money needed to pay for them; whereas we should let die those rather slow and inept, slothful, morally lax folks, who never did anything to earn enough money to be able to take responsibility for their health care needs. I know, we live in a truly horrifying world, indeed. If it were not bad enough, that our cosmology and collective conceptual framework has slowly led us to all thing the same, it is an even worse concern that we have come to worship the most idiotic, if not outright monstrous ideas: Our concept of justice is defined by the right to legal representation, whereby those chosen ones owning the buttload of money required to hire an attorney will systematically be right; whereas those who cannot afford it will systematically be wrong. It is what the chosen ones have taught us to call Democracy: so long we celebrate general elections, where everybody can participate, it does not matter that the upper class will always monopolize all the society's resources, privileges and opportunities. Indeed, what matters is the System's name, not how it works; What matters is not what laws are enacted or what rules do apply; but how the lawmakers are chosen. We are all most absolutely convinced that the president is the most powerful person in the nation; but, fact of the matter is, regardless of who he is, whether he comes from the left or from the right, whether he comes from the bottom or from the top, it will always be, that those born to wealthy families will forever get the best health care, the best education, the best positions, etc.. It is too difficult to go against the grain. You just cannot swim upstream. The System is too strong. One man cannot go against a thousand families, even if he is just trying to protect the other millions of people in the nation. As a matter of fact, if that is the case, it is only smart to join the spoliation... In short, what matters is not how the System works, but what name do they give to it; yet, if our system is said to be democratic, we can only wonder, who on Earth may like a monster of this sort.

Regrettably, however, there is little else we can do. When it comes to complex subjects, beyond the average person's common experience, it is only smart to listen to those more knowledgeable people, who care for us. But, given that nowadays the information we receive from the upper-class controlled system is incredibly corrupt, when it comes to more ordinary stuff, that anyone is familiar with, it is always a good idea to trust one's own instinct. For example, if each of us were a historian, we would know very well, that throughout History, societies will thrive whenever there was a strong central authority keeping the big families of the land in line. Human nature is such that whenever the oligarchs were free of any restrain, they would run amok and abuse and exploit anyone within their reach. Unfortunately, we lack historians' profound knowledge and - with no more information than the severely processed lectures we recieve in school - we are easy preys for the upper-class controlled mass-Media's mantras. We have therefore become totally convinced, to a degree that it would be heretic to express any doubt, that when the landed, slave-owning Colonial magnates and the wealthy French bourgeoisie revolted against, respectively, George III and Louise XVIII, it was for the sake of everybody's freedom (as if it were at all possible a society, where we are all free to do as we please). If that had been the case, it is only reasonable to agree with our fake-democratic system's fundamental principle, according to which the Press and mass-Media alike should play a paramount role in keeping the government under control, or "we" may lose "our" freedoms.           

 

A different story is if we talk about familiar stuff, with which we have plenty of experience. We certainly enjoy watching the Simpsons and find it really funny going through the stereotypical personalities of the average family. Hommer is indeed kind of the "average Joe". He is characterized by frequent immaturity, frequent stupidity, selfishness, laziness, envy and explosive anger. He is a pure moron and suffers from a short attention span, which complements his intense but short-lived passion for hobbies, enterprises, and various causes. Marge, on the other hand, is a introvertive, SENSITIVE, affectionate, Warm-hearted, loyal, responsible, sensible, humble and dedicated human being:Her family and friends are the key focus of her life. She is nurturing and selfless, always considering other people’s needs and willing to help others. She is kind, generous and forgiving, sincere and empathetic, always looking for the good in others and able to see the best in people. 

Remarkably, in the past we did not think in this way about women and men. While our views about the average man has not change that much, the idea people had in patriarchal societies about how women are was radically different. As much as they were loved, adored and even worshipped, women were also considered irrational creatures, prone to inexplicable bouts of anger. For some reason, the upper class nowadays wants instead to have us think of women as little, judicious angels that come from Heaven. After all, given that women make for 50% of the population, it is only natural, that a system that fakes to be democratic would evolve to cater for, and court the favor of, such a lovely and adorable portion of the society. In fact, we could only wonder, why on Earth the scriptwriters have not yet come up with the idea of describing a plague in Springfield of abuse of women by their male partners. Oddily enough, as much as we all constantly interact with other women and men, we still absorb this form of subliminal indoctrination. After all, we may know, more or less, the personalities of our family, friends and acquaintances; but each person is unique, and it is therefore natural to accept the insight of those most knowledgeable among us on how in general men and women work. Be it as it may, I think we could all agree, that it is just inconceivable, that (assuming that he actually thinks) Hommer would ever even entertain the thought of breaking up with Marge, unless he had previously found some other woman foolish enough to take him in. Conversely, should the day come, where Marge finally decides to dump Hommer, the question would be more like, how on Earth did she keep such a grotesque loser for so long. Indeed, the reasons that led Marge to fall in love with Hommer are certainly inscrutable enough to be worth an X-file. Now, it is also reasonable to think that Hommer himself would not share this view. Undoubtedly, as much as men adore women, when it comes to one's own wife, no one needs any expert to tell you how she 'works' and therefore the idyllic image of the little angel that comes from Heaven is pretty certain to dissipate rather quickly. After all, regardless of what the chosen ones may want us to think, we all know that women are every bit as self-minded as men. In fact, while a man will generally be happy with any good-looking woman, who believes in him, women will normally need something more substantial, before they accept the guy.

Fact of the matter is the reasons why Alia left me were certainly not that difficult to decipher. When we first met, Alia helplessly fell in love with me, because, oddily enough, she came to the belief that I was something like Superman. Now, since I am obviously no Superman, it was only a matter of time, before she would wake up from such foolish illusion. Fortunately, as much as women generally require something a bit more substantial, it usually does not take a superman. After all, if Marge had been able to maintain some appreciation for Hommer for so many years, there was no good reason, why Alia could not do the same with me. In fact, Hommer did never take Marge traveling across 65 countries. However, it was precisely when we were traveling that the limitations my disability imposed upon me became more evident. Indeed, during our journey across Africa there were a couple of times, where we had to stop, because I was experiencing some problems with my eyes, and Alia got markedly frustrated about it. Add then asshole cassanova Gary Rhenda to the mixture, and you get the recipe for the perfect storm. Fact of the matter is that, if Alia told me she was going to leave me, because she was sick of dragging me around the supermarkets, there is no reason to go crazy looking for the fifth leg of the cat. Rather, it is as self-evident as transparent that she meant that the burden my disability represented had indeed become sickening to her. That is, whether fake-Democracy's fake-feminist ideology likes it or not, if Alia broke up with me is because she came to be convinced that I was useless. Now, it may have been foolish to believe that I was Superman; but the idea that I was totally useless was likewise a bit off the mark. In fact, as soon as Gary burst the bubble and the knight in shining armor disappeared, Alia realize her mistake and felt like dying. After listening to what I had to say about her on the beach, it became clear to her that I would never love her again as much as she needed. The thought of having deadly wounded her marriage was then naturally so hurtful, that she could not take responsibility for it. Instead, it was more accommodating to believe that she had fallen out of love and her marriage was not worth it anyway.

 I have always thought that, if Alia broke up with me, it was to a significant degree, because she had come to conclude that I was useless. However, the obvious fact that she had fallen in love with Gary, made it totally credible, that she had simply stopped loving me. What I failed to understand is that, if Alia fell in love with Gary, it was because, deep inside her, some feeling grew that such a charming man would be better able to provide for her needs. In other words, the key which trigger the whole chain of events, had been Alia's hot-headed determination that I was useless. It is really agonizing to think, that I could have saved our marriage, if I had realized such fact. As much as I was (unconsciously) convinced about it, - since I was actually not (consciously) aware of it - I was just not able to spell it out. Obviously, I do not mean to say that I believe, I would have been able to sell to anybody any theory, suggesting that a woman in general will love the man, who she thinks is crazy for her and will be able to provide for all her needs (no doubt about it, the probability that any Hommer Simpson could ever convince anybody of anything, in a scale from 10 to 0, could again be estimated at about -7). But, if I had (consciously) known how 'the thing' works and had been able to identify the actual reasons for Alia's decision to break up with me, I would have been able to devise a plan to save our marriage. Indeed, I doubt Alia had needed me to elaborate much on, why I am not useless; but it was crucial that I would have told her that I understood what had happened, and I still loved her. Since I did not have a precise (conscious) concept of how women's love works, however, our marriage fell apart, and I went during the followin years through a nightmare, which might very well have taken my life. Admittedly, one might very well argu that, if Alia's love only went as far as how useful I was to her, I am better off forgetting about her, and looking instead for some woman who truly loves me for who I am. However, perhaps, thinking realistically, I may never be able to find such an ideal Marge Simpson.   

Now, if our ability to generate a complex plan to attain an arbitrary, desired goal were not powerful enough, its immediate derivative whereby we can then spell out the sequences of actions required to achieve said goal is in itself of comparable significance. Indeed, if we are able to spell out our reasonings, we will be able to transmit our knowledge. As accessorial as it may appear at first glance, the relevance of this feature simply cannot be overstated. It is no longer necessary for each of us to reinvent the wheel. Rather, it suffices if one does the brainwork of figuring the thing out and then transmits the findings to everybody else. How come we have not yet figure out, that humanity is the most powerful computing system in the world? Yes, the scheme is really awesome, since from here on out we will no longer need to spend two hours thinking about the next chess movement. Rather, probably somebody has already figured out what is the best move in such game position, and all what we have to do is to look it up. Yet, I am sure you will still try to take credit for your brilliant choice and blow your own trumpet over how intelligent you are, will you not? Now, we may want to be careful accepting someone else's lectures, since far more often than what we are aware of, the advice is not really meant in our best interest, but in the advisor's. For example, a financial expert may recommend to his vast following investing in a specific stock; but it only makes sense that he will only do so, after he, his closest associates and or very best clients have completed a beautiful purchase of said stock. Indeed, he will so be able to make a nice profit, once his lower-class acolytes follow suit and those shares increase their price as a result. This kind of scheme is obviously not a modern invention; but as old as knowledge teachings and advices. Would you not want to make a quick and easy profit, if you had anybody listening to you? There is nothing illegal about it! It is then straightforward to see, why our instinct is so naturally mistrustful of all those free advices everybody is always so eager to give. It turns out Evolution found a brilliant safeguard: we will only follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or, all in all, more powerful individuals, who we feel care for us. In other words, we will only follow those wise advices truly meant in our best interest. Makes a lot of sense, does it not? There is a critical flaw in this natural safeguard, though: Whereas we will raise the bar to near unreasonable levels before we recognize another person as more knowledgeable, we are instead alarmingly naive to believe our advisor cares for us. Indeed, unless the other person is visibly more powerful (like, for example, if he exhibits a lot of money), there is no way we will ever genuinely believe he knows better than us. Of course, whether Hommer Simpson talks about nuclear power plants or anything else, who is going to be foolish enough to buy anything a loser of that sort has to say? Yet, on the other hand, our advisor will typically only need to use some sweet words of praise and love, not to mention some food, for us to trust that he truly cares for us. Now, it would be mistaken to consider this as a flaw on Nature's part. Obviously, it is not Nature's problem if we fall for it. Indeed, those poor fools who follow the false son of the wrong god, will sooner or later simply dive off the cliff; whereas those who exhibit better judgement by following whoever most accurately explains how things work, are most likely to survive the competition and prevail. Clearly, the better one's understanding of how things work, the more one would be able to optimize one's interaction with the environment, and the more competitive one would be. In other words, every species is free to pursue its own survival strategy, and the role of Evolution is just to judge, whether it is good enough or not. If, after so many millenia, we, not only are still here, but have even become so successful and powerful, we can only conclude that, as of yesterday, the strategy could have hardly been better. Yet, the day that circumstances shift and the strategy stops working, we can be sure we will disappear. Consequently, - rather than stupidly hubrisly trying to best Evolution and to remake who we are, what we are or how we are - it is much smarter if we focus on ensuring, that the circumstances under which we have flourished so spectacularly, do not change to any significant degree.

Absolutely, humankind is a prodigious success story. It is stupefying how, little by little, we have been extending our knowledge on how to achieve any imaginable objective. We, however, should never take this to mean that primitive humans had no clue of how things work or that our reasoning and planning mechanism has improved significantly, let alone that we are now more intelligent than in the distant or recent past. Undoubtedly, primitive humans had an impressive understanding of how the things in their world worked. It is only that back then there were not that many things as today. Obviously, there were no smartphones, cars, electricity, television, freezers, etc. On the other hand, we, as a whole, have a wider knowledge of the many more things in today's world. However, it is doubtful to what extent each of us, individually, may be more knowledgeable than our primitive ancestors. We may know how to operate smartphones, freezers and the like; but primitive humans were far more proficient navigating through the natural landscape, than most of us are nowadays. For obvious reasons, folks in the past had a more profound knowledge of trees, animals, crops, etc.. Furthermore, there is a very good case to be made that, as much as our scientific knowledge has spectacularly improve our understanding of basically everything, to the extent to which the System's ideology's sway on our minds has got so pervasive, it would be fair to say, that our understanding of some of the most fundamental things in this world has become scaringly grotesque. For instance, today our fake-democratic ideology compels us all to think that men and women are the same thing.

Be it as it may, while humanity's collective encyclopedia or conscious knowledge of the world has certainly increased, it seems far more open to question that each of our individual conscious knowledge has been improved. This is one of many other indications, that our planning and reasoning mechanism has not become more powerful either. If a mechanism of the sort of the tree-search algorithm described above is in fact behind our planning and reasoning abilities; it really does not seem likely, it would be possible to explain any intellectual and cognitive differences we might observe between ancient and modern people, as well as between contemporary individuals, in terms of variations in such planning and reasoning mechanism. Indeed, the evident advance in our conceptual framework, as well as the amount of effort put in the search of an optimal plan of action, provide promising and very credible explanations for the differences in cognitive abilities, that can be found between people in the distant and recent past, and modern humans, as well as between contemporary modern individuals. Without a doubt, the richer and more accurate one's conceptual framework in the problem at hand, as well as the more exhaustive the search conducted, the better the end result will be. The earlier chess example comes in again handy: we can think that hominids have been analyzing the problem for billions of years. Little by little, in fits and starts, they figured out the chessboard and its 64 squares, as well as the existence of the 6 different types of pieces, each with its own rules of behavior. Eventually, they even came up with basic strategies such as some promising openings or how to attain check-mate from certain game configurations. In fact, our ancestors' analysis has been so thorough, that, by the time we enter the scene, one would wonder if there is still anything left for us to figure out.. Indeed, pretty much all of our conscious knowledge comes from what other people have taught us, or from reading someone else's work. Given that there is already a known solution for almost any problem imaginable, there is for us barely ever any need to reason anything out, other than to make sense of someone else's explanation or, perhaps, how to apply some rhetorical trick to win an argument. Fact of the matter is nowadays we barely ever explore new better ways to solve a problem or achieve a goal. In 1949, English mathematician Alan Turing proposed the Game Imitation Test to assess a machine's ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to that of humans. In the test, a human evaluator examines a conversation between the machine and a human being. The machine passes the test, if the examiner is not able to distinguish in the conversation, who is the human and who is the machine. While Artificial Intelligence systems have undeniably achieved a stunning advancement, the Turing test would today still be able to tell the difference between the speech produced by the human and the speech generated by the machine. Worringly enough, however, what is new now is that - to the extent that nowadays we barely ever do anything other than repeating some opinion leader's arguments - the responses provided by the machine will generally be more logical, sensible and informative than those of the human. It can then only feel almost as pathetic as ridiculous, that we are today so convinced to be much more intelligent than those poor ancient dummies. Absolutely, primitive humans did not have at their disposal today's wealth of knowledge, upon which they could make inferences and build up. Clearly, if you have never heard about atoms, you will never be able to understand what is a molecule. If nobody has ever taught you the concept of living cells; you will be hardly able to make any sense of any biological process. What is more, in the past we were not nearly as powerful as we are in the contemporary times; but we were just living at subsistence levels: one tiny mistake and you were out. Our basic needs could not always be covered and folks were not ready to bow their heads down with just a series of misleading rhetorical tricks. Real results were needed or the whole group might be wiped off. THe competition was fierce and only those who came up with the strongest innovations and most efficient practices made it alive. Indeed, competition and the cooperation that follows from necessity are discovery and innovation's best fertilizer. Fascinatingly, if we consider human evolution, from prehistoric to historical times, we could get a good glimpse of how the human learning process advanced and little by little we came up with new ideas, with which to improve our interaction with our environment. Crucially, as we figured things out, we also came up with ways to share the new knowledge; otherwise it would die with us. At first, the new generations simply imitated the behaviors and gestures of the grown ups. But language obviously offers a far more versatile and powerful form of transmitting information. It was then a matter of time before we would somehow start agreeing on how we would refer to things. Probably the most natural method was to point at things to clearly indicate what exactly is that we are thinking about. That certainly does it for the most essential stuff. Once there was a basis, our primitive ancestors' language skills could naturally grow as parents demonstrated to the kids how to start a fire, how to sharpen a flint, how to make bread, how to smelt metal, how to put speech in writing... and the rest is history! Language definitely became a formidable tool to spread knowledge like wildfire. Not unlike a massively parallel-and distributed computing system, as folks kept exploring and trying out things, they were eager to teach their findings - if not to the neighbors (against whom, let us be honest, we after all have to compete) - at least to their children. It is like everybody was playing chess games in parallel, trying every possible action and making note of the outcomes of their experiments, so that those who followed could learn from their experiences. Obviously, those comunities which attained a better understanding of how things work got an evolutionary edge. It is then of no surprise that, as special and intelligent we enjoy thinking we are, many other animal species likewise evolved some form of language. Indeed, there is no indication that we were able to figure out more stuff and developed a greater knowledge; because we got a smarter decision-making agent, some sort of premium neurons or our brains were wired up in a particularly brilliant fashion. Rather, it seems more reasonable and plausible an explanation, according to which our Devil's idle hands afforded us more freedom to play and try out a wider array of actions, and, therefore, we were able to develop a richer conceptual framework. A virtuous circle is then established, as a richer conceptual framework leads to a more sophisticated language, which in turn empowers more individuals to perform a more educated exploration for new findings, with which to further enhance our collective conceptual framework. It so speaks to how stupid we have become, that since Civilization started to distinguish the members of the society by the exquisiteness of their lineages, still to the present time, we have always denied good education to the great majority of the population; particularly the youths of low socio-economic origin, precisely those who - despite, perhaps, having been damned with a vulgar decision-making agent - will always be more willing to put a bigger effort in exploring new better solutions. No doubt about it, if we have not figured out that humanity is the most powerful computing system in the world, it is because we definitely are not even half as smart as we believe to be. God bless then those wonderful folks, who took the first steps in the development of the internet. We will never be grateful enough to them, since it is hard to see how we would be able to escape from total collapse without their work.

Language is so the final, critical leap, whereby we get upgraded from self-minded individuals to members of a higher-level complex system such as a human society. This statement may seem rather dull - given that the term 'complex system' has such wide meaning -; but there is actually a whole lot to unpack from it: The defining feature of a complex system is that it is composed of many components interacting with one another. To the extent that human societies develop some truly impressive knowledge on how the world around them works, it is reasonable to view human societies as computing systems. Logically, - not unlike neurons to the brain - humans are the units of the 'humanity' computing system, since it is the competition and cooperation among humans what constitutes the basis for the computations of the whole. As observed above, it is the information exchange that language powers, what brings this complex computing system into being. At first there were neurons whose firings - and those of their 'neural associates' - were getting reinforced or inhibited, depending on whether the neuron's response was followed by reward or punishment. These simple reinforcement learning dynamics led to the emergence of concepts, which afforded a more efficient exploration and acquisition of sequences of actions for the achievement of a certain goal.  . Since concepts are coded in natural (human) language, the sheer sequences of actions represent in themselves natural language scripts, detailing the steps that need to be followed in order to accomplish the corresponding goal. Now, your brain might prefer to utilize a coding scheme different than mine to code concepts; but -given that we will be stronger if we work together - why not agreeing in a common coding scheme? Make no mistake, there is not really a choice: if we are still here, it is - among other reasons - because our ancient ancestors somehow converged in the same coding scheme. Those others who did make the mistake, did not make it out alive for long. Indeed, since we share a common language, we can exchange some really useful tricks and recipes to achieve some really cool stuff. Voila!, - not unlike what we observed for the neurons in our brains - those human conducts leading to success become more popular, whereas those leading to failure get abandoned. Furthermore, if we ever figure out how to establish a true (non-fake) democratic system, the society will implement those policies preferred by the majority of the people. In any case, with or without true democracy, at the end of the day, Nature's incorruptible and merciless 'survival of the fittest' rule will enforce that those societies adopting the most successful policies will thrive and prevail; whereas those which fail to learn from experience - regardless of how intelligent, beautiful, godly, fake-democratic or true-democratic their members are - will be prone to making mistakes and sooner or later collapse and die off. It should then not come to a big surprise that the most successful societies are those which develop strong, efficient and (most importantly) fair systems for education, health care, justice, etc.. In other words, the good news are that, as merciless as Nature's survival-of-the-fittest rule may be, at the individual brain level as well as the society level, there is no need for any rocket scientist, but the most successful conducts are generally those which work well for the majority of the members of the system.

 

 Yes, some very simple dynamics can yield miraculously spectacular results! In fact, fascinatingly enough, we find that the same patterns we see at the individual-brain level get projected into the society level. Indeed, there is a stunning parallelism between the designs and institutions we observe at the collective level and the individual level. As a matter of fact, it is not difficult to see that this parallelism stems from the fact that human societies and individual humans are both complex systems following the same dynamics. Absolutely, much like individual humans, it makes a whole lot of sense to view human societies as living beings operating under the same reinforcement learning and survival-of-the-fittest rules.

One of the most obvious examples of this is the equivalence between writing and long-term memory. Undoubtedly, a living being will be fitter the better it interacts with its environment. But, obviously, it will be impossible to learn anything without memory. What is more, the longer the range of the system's memory, the better able it will be to learn to optimize its interaction with its surroundings. Hence, given the ruthless competition for survival, it can only be expected that any complex system operating in  this wild world of ours will develop some form of long-term memory.

Probably the most fascinating of the equivalences between the individual-brain level and the human society level is the sort of 'metaphysical isomorphism' existent between the individual-brain's conscious knowledge and the society's current scientific knowledge state of the art. Relating back to the earlier discussion on concepts, this sort of equivalence or 'metaphysical isomorphism' is the kind of 'thing', which remains sufficiently unexplored that we have not yet seen the need to give it a name, which to refer to it by. Thus, all what can be done is to describe 'how' this equivalence works; that is how individual-brain conscious knowledge and scientific knowledge correspond to each other. As a matter of fact, it would be inaccurate to view these two bodies of knowledge as separate things; but they are more like the two sides of the same coin. Indeed, on one hand the individual-brain conscious knowledge can be seen as the scientific knowledge state of the art of the individual's society of neurons; but, in addition to that, the society's scientific knowledge simultaneously represents the total sum of the conscious knowledge of each of all the members of the society. Intriguingly enough, the concurrence and synchrony between the society's scientific knowledge and the individual's conscious knowledge keep a remarkable parallelism with those existent between a complex multi-cellular living being's DNA and the set of RNAs each of the cells that make it up operate with; namely, while the DNA determines the global organism's behavior, the set of RNAs produced by a cell's nucleus marks how the cell functions. Correspondingly, while a society should in theory function in accordance to the most advanced scientific and technical knowledge, each of the members of the society takes conscious decisions based on his or her conscious knowledge. THe fact that DNA and RNA, as well as scientific knowledge and conscious knowledge are all nothing but schemes to represent operational information must definitely be a significant factor why it is possible to establish such a striking parallelism. Indeed, while DNA and RNA utilize a nucleotides-based coding scheme to code cellular functions, conscious knowledge and scientific knowledge use natural language to specify how human beings can carry out tasks and achieve goals. Admittedly, however, the human knowledge system is a bit more sophisticated than the genetic knowledge system: namely, language is the coding scheme employed by the brain to code conscious knowledge, but language is likewise the medium employed by humans to share such information. Needless to say, scientific knowledge is a synthesis of all this shared information. Now, not unlike a living being's DNA, the collective knowledge feeds back to the individual members' conscious knowledge. To make a long story short, language wires up, brings to life and keeps powered up the whole humanity computing-system living being. What is more, language is humanity's backbone, nervous and blood system.  

Now, it is important to stress that the society's scientific knowledge is the sum of the conscious knowledge of each of its members; but does not include the sum of the total knowledge of each of all the members of the society. Specifically, none of the members' unconscious knowledge forms part of the society's scientific knowledge. Indeed, scientific knowledge is the synthesis of all the information that researchers have written down in scientific articles. Thus, to the extent that unconscious knowledge is such because nobody has yet been able to spell it out with words, it has not yet made it to any publication. You may have a fantastic talent scoring tripple-pointers; but so long you do not know how to spell out with words how you do it, you will not be able to transmit your skill and nobody will therefore be able to learn it from you. An immediate extension of this observation is that nobody will be able to know anything going through your mind, beyond what you can explain with words. This in turn leads us to another fascinating equivalence: namely, we can think of the society's collective consciousness as the synthesis of the individual consciousness of each of its members. Indeed, there is the same kind of 'metaphysical isomorphism' between collective consciousness and individual consciousness as what I previously described between the society's scientific knowledge and its members' conscious knowledge. Now, what is so exciting about this remark is that, if we consider how does the society's collective consciousness emerge from its members' conscious thoughts, it should not be difficult to visualize how does our individual consciousness likewise emerge from our brain's neurons' activity.  

    

Before we begin, however, we first have to reach an agreement on what it means to be self-conscious. In accordance to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am", it seems reasonable to say that a living being's consciousness is the state of being aware of one's thoughts. In other words, consciousness emerges when one becomes aware of one's current needs and desires, as well as the plan that will be or is being followed to fulfill them. THe problem with this criterion, however, is that it does not provide any insight on how it may be possible to measure the degree to which one is aware of something. Consequently, the system will have to produce some sort of indication, as of what are its goals and plans to achieve them, in order for us to be able to know it is conscious of them. 

At this point it will be useful to bring back the earlier questions on the emergence of consciousness, namely: How did the settlers of British North America come to think of themselves as citizens of the U.S.? Moreover, why did they take up arms to fight for their new nation's independence? There is absolutely no doubt that none of the rebels had needed to dwell on the question, in order to produce an unequivocal response. Clearly, at some point in time they had come to believe, that their lives would go for the better, if they broke away from Great Britain, and they had got so convinced about it, that they were willing to take up arms and risk their lives to fight for such a goal. These folks then came to think of themselves as members of a new political unit, when a sufficient number of them embrace these beliefs and began organizing themselves and acting as one man.

It is certainly legitimate to wonder why these settlers came to feel the need to break away and whether there were actually good reasons justifying their conviction according to which life would be better under a new, independent state. As a matter of fact, for already many years they had been living in the new world and never appeared to find any problem in being subjected to the laws of the English king and parlament. Yet, at some point, certain distinguished figures in their communities started making the case, that their current status was insufferable and it had become imperative to fight for independence. Little by little, these prominent members were able to sway other folks and gather support to their cause until a sufficient majority of the population had been convinced. It then stands to reason to say that the 13 colonies had become self-conscious, since they would not have found any difficulty to produce an explanation, as of what was their goal and how did they plan to accomplish it.

In sharp contrast, our dear frog buddy is doomed. Without any means to communicate with us, there is no way it will ever be able to prove anything to us. We are so helplessly besotted with our own intelligence divinity, that - not unlike Ancient Classics - we think that all other animals are nothing but stupid barbarians that do not even know how to speak. Frogs, on their part, - much unlike dogs and many other pet animals - do not understand any word of human language. Frogs - much unlike dogs and many other pet animals - do not need humans to feed them and so could not care less what we think. Long story short, it does not matter whether our froggy pal's brain evolved any kind of planning and reasoning mechanism and or it is totally aware of its thoughts and existence, so long it has no way to communicate anything to us, we will just assume it is only acting instinctively and give it a resounding NO on the Consciousness Test. 

The point that I will try to establish is that the construct and sense of consciousness will naturally emerge in any (living-being like) learning system (i.e. a system which follows an ultimate aim to perpetuate itself and is therefore subject to the 'survival of the fittest' rule) making choices in accordance to the sort of 'tree-search based' planning and reasoning mechaanism described above. Indeed, as discussed throughout the earlier sections, once the brain becomes able to remember, maintain, generate and analyze sequences of actions it will be possible to establish a link between an initial state and a target state. By the 'survival of the fittest' rule, only those systems which learn to select and successfully pursue those goals that keep them alive will have a fair chance to prevail. Moreover, since the description of each milestone, as well as the instructions on how to advance from one milestone to the next, are all coded in natural language, as the search proceeds up and down the tree of all alternative combinations, the system will feel a train of thoughts of the kind we associate with conscious thought. Finally, since plans are represented in this way as sequences of actions, in order to generate a script, it will suffice to go through the sequence and transcribe each set of instructions at each step along the way.

For instance, on every turn, a chess player performs a tree search to explore what sequence of movements will land him at the best possible position. Basically, on each turn, he tries to find the one movement, which - regardless of how the opponent reacts - will progressively lead him to an ever stronger position. Obviously, he will be better able to accomplish this objective the more deeply he looks ahead. Now, to the extent that at any time he will be able to explain what are the reasons leading him to select a specific course of action, it would be fair to say that he is conscious of what he is seeking, as well as how and why he hopes to achieve it. Moreover, as he goes back and forth, up and down, left and right in his tree search, exploring at each step each of its options , as well as his opponent's possible responses, he will feel  the corresponding train of thoughts running through his mind.

Another question is, however, what is it good for to be conscious of one's plan and the goal it aims to, if the goal itself is just artificial, as it is the case, for example, for a computer system running an artificial-intelligence Chess-playing algorithm? What is the point of a plan, if there is no real objective in the first place? It certainly feels odd to speak of the consciousness of an inanimated object, without any real aim or purpose of its own. Indeed, as Descartes' famous "I think, therefore I am" reflection implies, our concept of what we call 'consciousness' is intimately tied to the concept of existence and the aspiration to (in one form or another) perpetuate oneself, and in the absence of these the concept of consciousness loses any real meaning.

Let us so return to a more realistic case, and consider how does consciousness emerge in a baby's brain. Assuming a baby's cries are - at the time of birth - an instinctive reaction, if consciousness is the state of awareness of one's needs, desires and plans to accomplish them; then it stands to reason to say, that a baby's consciousness first emerges, when its brain makes the connection between its cries and having its needs attended. If you like the intelligent-agent line of thinking, you may see this magical event as the miraculous awakening of a human's intelligent agent, by means of its first aha moment. Alternatively, the model that I propose here suggests  that, from the very first moment the baby is born, the kind of planning and reasoning mechanism described earlier is in operation, and is about to make its first realization. There is little doubt that we are born with a whole lot of instinctive wisdom wired up in our brains (like, for instance, starting a crying behavior whenever the baby feels any necessity); but, to the extent that we have not yet had any interaction with the environment, the planning and reasoning mechanism has not yet produced any conscious knowledge. Yet, since the day the baby was born, time and time again its needs have consistently been attended shortly after it began crying. As a result, the (instinctive) association between the crying behavior and necessities being satisfied, has grown ever stronger. Time and time again, the baby has felt some need and its brain has put its planning mechanism to work in search of a plan to satisfy it. Since the conscious knowledge base does not yet offer any good insight, all what the baby's brain has to go by is its instinct. As a matter of fact, now it has some very strong intuition that some little tears will achieve the goal. This is no longer any random choice. This is not a beginner chess player just trying out the first movement that comes into his mind. It is about time that the planning and reasoning mechanism puts our intuition to a test. If the outcome is then successful, the new recipe will be noted on the conscious knowledge base.

 

Voila! the connection has been established! From here on out, whenever we feel any need, there is no reason to rack one's brain, exploring hundred possible alternatives. Our cookbook has already an awesome trick for it: "I just have to cry a little and I will get what I want".

Clearly, the baby has become self-conscious, since it is now fully aware of its wishes as well as how to achieve them. However, to the extent that it will still be a while before our little angel knows how to speak, it will not be able to spell out its thoughts. Still, if we could previously agree that the 13 Colonies had become self-conscious, because a great majority of the population as well as their representatives exhibitted a strong believe that the new nation would serve their interest best and therefore expressed an unequivocal intention to fight for its independence; then it seems reasonable to say that the baby is self-conscious, since a significant group of our sweetheart's neurons believe matters for them will go for the better, if they all agree to start a crying behavior. The obvious problem with this argument, however, is that - to the extent that it is not known that neurons have some kind of decision-making agent - it does not make much sense to speak of a neuron's beliefs. Yet, if we accept that actions speak louder than words, then, so long the relevant neurons fire whenever it is appropriate to shed some tears and refrain from firing whenever it is not appropriate to cry, for all intends and purposes, the baby is aware and in control of what it is doing.

In fact, it does not matter what were the actual motives and reasonings, why the settlers of British North America fought for independence or whether they ever openly declared them or went surreptitiously about it, so long they somehow aided the fight, for all intends and purposes, their collective actions led to the birth of the U.S. national ideology.

Indeed, it does not matter if the vehicle has a pilot, who can explain why it turned to the left or to the right. So long the vehicle turns to the left and to the right, whenever it is appropriate to do so, for all intends and purposes, the vehicle is conscious of its aims and actions. Definitely, anybody watching the vehicle would swear that behind the steering wheel there is an intelligent agent. What is more, if the vehicle puts together its plans of actions performing some sort of tree-search algorithm, it will experience the same kind of train of thoughts , that humans associate with conscious thought. Finally, if all that would not be enough, it turns out the autonomous vehicle does not even need a pilot, in order to be able to explain when, how and why it acted the way it did: since  plans are generated as sequences of actions, in order to produce a script, it will suffice to go through the sequence and transcribe each set of instructions at each step along the way.

Now, If we are ready to accept that actions speak louder than words and therefore no explanations should be required to acknowledge a system's self-consciousness, but intelligent behavior should suffice; then our froggy pal could very correctly contend the exact same reasoning should equally apply to it. Indeed, our buddy snaps at any fly left and right with a mastery, virtuosity and grace, that we could never even dream to come close to. Yet, since we will never listen to a single word it is saying (let alone be able to understand anything), it will never have a chance to make its case, but we will unceremoniously negate it any agency, self-consciousness or intelligence.

Let us be honest, the thing we call 'consciousness is not only ill-defined, but it is as cryptic as unfathomable and elusive to fully get to grips with. The concept of consciousness is of any relevance to the extent that it is a crying symptom. For millenia humans have come to believe in the existence of a soul or some sort of intelligent, decision-making agent, as the most straightforward explanation for our train of thoughts and sense of consciousness. However, if our brain theory on the orgin of intelligent behavior takes a scientific approach and therefore avoids resorting on the assumption of any such agent, then the interest of consciousness demotes to the level of a mere collateral observation, that the theory will have to explain: namely, what leads to our train of thoughts and sense of consciousness? However, since it no longer represents the heartbeat of any kind of decision-making agent, there is no point in looking for an explanation as of how consciousness produces intelligent behavior; neither does it make any sense to diminish the 'intelligence' (whatever this should mean) of any other animal species, if it does not provide any sign of self-consciousness.

In fact, on the opposite end of the argument, it would not be difficult to conceive a system, which - with very little in terms of intelligent behavior to show for - would appear most absolutely self-conscious to any conventional observer. As stated before, today there are artificial systems, which would pass Turing's Imitation Game Test, when confronted to any but the most highly-educated of the human interlocutors. For instance, if - as I suggested above - a system's ability to spell out its needs and desires, as well as its plans to achieve them, is all what we require to acknowledge said system's self-consciousness; then some artificial needs and desires would do to pass the Consciousness Test. Indeed, if the system is free to come up with whatever arbitrary aims, then it will not take a rocket scientist to figure out some plan to achieve them as well as to elaborate a scrip providing all sorts of explanations. For that sake, any computer Chess-playing algorithm would only need to output a script of its tree search exploration, in order to appear self-conscious and pass the Consciousness Test. Needless to say, the caveat is a system pursuing that kind of artificial goals would not pass the Survival Test. Evidently, since the system does not have any clear strategy of survival, but only pursues frivolous needs and desires, it will not be fit enough to make it out alive in this very wild and competitive world of ours. 

This is to say that it is of little value to be self-conscious, if one does not even know how to stay alive and all what there is to be conscious about is one's impending demise. Clearly, to the extent that being intelligent can, if at all, only be of any meaning so long one makes intelligent choices, it definitely does not make any sense to consider an agent intelligent because it is self-conscious, but because it prevails. As we see with Turing's Test, if the level of intelligence or consciousness is to be judged by a human, it will not be possible to obtain an objective measurement. Evidently, the only test of any real value is Nature's 'survival of the fittest' rule.

Viewed in this light, species can be seen as knowledge on how to prevail. The main component of this knowledge is represented by the species' DNA. To the extent that the DNA chain is common to all members of the species, the information contained therein is likewise shared among them. On top of this genetic knowledge, in all but the most primitive animal species, each individual animal living-being's brain will learn and acquire additional knowledge on how to interact with the environment, in order to increase the animal's fitness and chance to prevail.

   

Our newborn-baby example comes in handy once more to illustrate the interplay between these two forms of knowledge. Evidently, when a baby is born, it comes with a whole lot of information wired-up in its brain, on how to perform some basic actions and functions, such as : sucking, swallowing, discharging urine and faeces, vomiting, crying, etc.. We can philosophize as much as we feel like, on the degree to which the baby's brain knows all the care and attention it will receive, whenever it engages in a crying behavior; but there is no question that it will not be long before any such knowledge is enhanced. As discussed earlier, it seems safe to assume that crying is an instinctive reaction the brain triggers, whenever some need arises. THe model I here propose, has the 'tree search'-based planning and reasoning mechanism started up in search of a sequence of actions to satisfy the specific need in question. Since at first there is no recipe on the baby's conscious knowledge base, the only movement suggested is to begin some instinctive screams. As the move will consistently attain the desired goal, the crying behavior will successively be reinforced, until, at some point, the connection is made. From here on out, whenever the baby's brain feels any necessity, the search for any action to fulfill it will obtain two suggestions: the baby's brain's instinct will propose to start screaming, and the conscious knowledge-base recipe will suggest nothing but the same. Evidently, there is no question on what will be the outcome of the competition on what course of action to follow. However, sooner or later the trick will stop working; mom will get increasingly frustrated and expect the baby to learn to state what is exactly what it wants. Mom will certainly be happy to help in this endeavor and teach her sweetheart some basic words: like, for instance, water, food, "pee-pee", etc.. Obviously, there is nothing forcing the baby to learn to ask for things. However, if all what it does is to scream whenever it requires something, its needs will not be met as diligently as those of other babies, who do learn how to speak. In other words, those babies who acquire new skills and knowledge will have a better chance to prevail. In fact, our little angel's brain is already wired up to always insatiably learn new stuff. Little by little, with its mother help, the baby will come to know, that "water" is the right term to refer to water. Now, whenever our sweetheart wants some water, three suggestions will be raised: in addition to instinctive screaming and the old screaming recipe from the baby's conscious cookbook, a third idea has recently been gaining strength. Since the word "water" has been associated with the concept of a glass of water, now that our angel is thirsty, it will feel the intuition to speak out loud: "water!". This idea has not yet been tried before and is therefore still fairly weak; however, the old tricks have not been working well lately and consequently are not so strong anymore. Since there is always a degree of randomness, there is a fair chance that asking for water will win the competition. Yet - even if that is not the case and the baby resorts once more on crying - after a while, observing that mom does not react as desired, the old tricks will lose momentum. As the neurons selective for a crying behavior run out of gas, the neurons selective for the word "water" become the next best option. Finally, the tide of the battle will turn, the baby will say the word and mom will be the happiest person on the face of the planet. For the first time, our sweetheart learned how to ask for something! If the water is not rewarding enough, mom's joy, hugs and kisses will ensure that the baby's brain makes the connection right away. Next time our sweetheart wants some water, there will not be any doubts on what recipe to follow. In fact, the scheme is really powerful: in the same way it got some water, it can get anything it wants, by just asking for it. Evidently, all what it takes is to know which is the right word to use. Furthermore, now that our angel knows how to speak, sky is the limit on all the knowledge it can acquire. Well..., I got a little bit carried out here. Language does empower us to learn all of humanity's knowledge; but there is obviously still a lot that has so far escaped our grasp.

Now, needless to say, all the knowledge and wisdom, conscious as well as unconscious , the individual human being accumulates throughout his or her life does not get transferred back and consolidated into the human DNA. Rather, whenever a new baby is born, it has to start from scratch all over again. This may seem a waste, all those efforts dedicated during a persons lifetime, in order to learn how to speak, how to cook, how to ride a bicycle, how to perform mathematical operations... end up in nothing after that person's death. It goes without saying, however, this is the wrong way to look at the question. Since it is necessary to relearn everything once again everytime a new individual is born , the species is better able to adapt to changes in the outside world. After all, the information contained in the species' DNA and the information learned by the individual's brain represent two different bodies of knowledge. Namely, the DNA is concerned with how the individual organisms function and operate, whereas the brain's aim is to learn how the world works. Indeed, the DNA - in addition to the specification of all internal processes and functions - defines how the individual organism will acquire information from its environment, how said information is processed, and the means by which the individual acts upon the environment. THe optimization of the individual organisms actual interactions with the world outside is, however, not the genetic code's purview, but each of the organism's brain's. Rather, Our genetic code sets the dynamics which will naturally lead the individual organisms to converge into the optimal patterns of interaction. it is certainly not by chance or sheer genius that all babies advance from crying, as their sole recourse to get their needs attended, to learning how to speak (so long mom is there to assist, that is). After all, our world is in continuous and permanent evolution and whatever is optimal today may be unfit tomorrow. Therefore, there is not that much benefit in preserving the old recipes; but there are good reasons to have the newborn organism relearn everything over again. Besides, it is definitely not true that an individual's knowledge is lost after he or she dies. Clearly, we, as many other animals, evolved languages so that we could transmit any knowledge worth keeping. While there have always been cases where some important knowledge was lost, there is no doubt that throughout time, in general terms, humanity's knowledge has been growing steadily. Definitely, not only have we not had the need to reinvent the wheel, but we have developed incredibly sophisticated structures and institutions. It is certainly understandable why creationists have come to conclude, that our world's miraculous perfection and beauty cannot have originated from pure chance; but must have been the design of a supremely intelligent Creator.

In the same fashion, it is certainly understandable why humans have always been convinced that the mesmerizing advancement of humanity's knowledge, as well as our spectacular scientific, technological and institutional development could have only been the product of pure human genius (whatever the exact definition of this may be.). However, incredibly sophisticated - even miraculously perfect and beautiful - patterns can be observed everywhere in Nature. We may think the invention of the computer required a prodigious genius, but the most primitive brain would blow out of the water the most powerful computer in all but the dullest run-of-the-mill tasks. We may find it totally justified that the upper-class-controlled Media clergy does ceaselessly, day in, day out, morning, noon and night blow its own trumpets, preach and sing the praises of the word of the evil Lord of Democracy, but if only the fake-Democracy monster would care half as much for the interests and wellbeing of the average citizenship, as the neurons in the animal brain look after the advancement and good standing of the entire organism. In his book "Against the Grain", James C. Scott draws a truly fascinating analogy between the patterns of exploitation and leeching off exhibited by ancient raiding "barbarian" tribes and parasitic pathogens. As Scott points out, carried to its logical conclusion, raiding is in itself self-liquidating. Driven by their own natural lust and endless appetite, raiders are naturally inclined to take as much as they can from the sedentary community they attack. However, by demolishing the means of subsistance of their preys, raiders obviously kill all the "game" that keeps them fed. Raiders would so, over and over again, drive themselves into extinction; until eventually they will somehow adapt their strategy and adopt a less aggressive approach, one that would allow the goose that lays the golden egg some breathing room. Fascinatingly enough, this is the same strategy followed by parasitic pathogens that make a steady living from the host rather than killing it off. While it is still possible to argue - as contrived and labored as it feels -, that less aggressive raiding schemes were the result of some kind of reasoning, conscious thought, deliberate choice or something along those lines; certainly no reasonable mind would give any credit to any parasitic-pathogen intelligent agent. In fact, regardless of what one's stance on the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection may be, it does not require a whole lot of thinking to imagine how these conducts may have emerged; the answer is transparent to anyone who wants to see it: THe parasitic organism interacts with its hosts according to the rules coded in its DNA. Different mutations will lead to various degrees of virulence. Those which suck their victims blood as if there were no tomorrow, will obviously, dig their own grave and disappear; so that all what will be left for us to find will be those more measured strands, which exhibit a longer-term lookout or, perhaps, more regard for their hosts wellbeing, and spare them from an immediate death.  

Fact of the matter is in Nature we find again and again this kind of pattern of delicate interdependence among multiple species and DNAs. In its broadest sense, this principle constitutes the basis for domestication. Indeed, it is reasonable to see domestication as a sophisticated form of symbiosis. Agrarian civilizations have always attributed the invention of farming to their superior intellect. It is certainly difficult not to understand farming as one of humankind's most remarkable creations, if only because it constitutes a key reason for the species success, as it allows for much greater populations than other subsistance modes. However, today there is little doubt that - not unlike most other major human inventions - the domestication of plants and animals evolved over thousands of years in fits and starts. Now, it is certainly possible to think of all the series of innovations that took place along the process, as prodigious aha moments; but, if we consider the data free of any ideological preconceptions, cold and objective reason would tell us that, in all likelihood, there was not really any magic involved in any of these little steps forward. If we just consider our own experience, whenever we face a problem, barely ever will we feel confident enough to be able to reason some solution out; but will instead just take our best guess. For instance, if we cook some food and want to try something new, very rarely will we have any reasonable expectation of what the outcome will look like, let alone how it will taste. In fact, some authors, perhaps somewhat teasingly or jockingly, have dared to offer a new, pretty provocative and witty view of the concept of domestication. Could it be that, after all, humans are not really the agents, but, actually, the objects being domesticated? According to this line of thinking, humans put so much love and effort in the care of their potato crops, that one could only reasonably conclude we got the shorter end of the stick. Humanists, if only by principle, will often be inclined to dismiss this idea as a mere silly and frivolous philosophical argument. How could anybody seriously suggest that some brainless potato would ever be able to manipulate, let alone dominate, the most intelligent species on Earth? Moreover, when all is said and done, who eats whom? Ironically enough, however, barbarian raiders (for that sake, even parasitic pathogens) could use this very same argument to boast their intellectual superiority over those most sublimely intelligent sedentary (civilization) people. Furthermore, it would not be difficult to think of many other cases where humans, not only are not on top, but do not even end up devouring the other party in the relationship. If we consider, for instance, cats (as well as many other pets) it is rather unseen the case where the cat is not running the show. Undoubtedly, there is nothing as powerful as love to have somebody wrapped around one's little finger. Indeed, much is very grotesquely and  repugnantly disingenuously argued these days by our fake-feminist intellectual elite on men's domineering and abusive attitudes and conducts against women. Yet, when all is said and done, who kneels before whom? In fact, it would even be possible to extend the argument to certain plants, such as those producing mind-altering substances: brainless as they are, they are most definitely literally in control of our minds.

 

Fact of the matter is, when it comes to the paramount quest of prevailing, there is really no need of a brain (let alone some sort of magically intelligent agent sitting on top of it), in order to devise an optimal strategy. As previously discussed, the whole point is to make it through Nature's 'survival of the fittest' test. Thus, if prevailing is the mother of all quests, the strategy for survival is the mother of all strategies. Now, if the goal is to come out on top, it certainly would help to have other organisms serve our needs. However, as any parasitic pathogen could tell you, better go easy about it, because the sun will indeed rise tomorrow, and you may need them then once more. Indeed, it is critical to find a happy medium between what you get and what you give. Unfortunately, in this truly chaotic world of ours, where the flap of a butterfly's wing in one corner of the globe can cause weeks later a tornado anywhere else, it is just not realistic to think one may be able to reason out, where the freaking happy medium will be. Or, perhaps, you believe you could track every single butterfly wing's flap all over the world? Clearly, all what can realistically be done is to take as many educated guesses as possible. 

Interestingly, that is exactly what Nature's 'survival of the fittest' rule does. Indeed, genetic algorithms have a population of units exploring in parallel a certain domain in search of a global optimum (in this case, a globally-optimal survival strategy). Although there will always be commonalities (especially the more similar the DNAs are), each individual represents a specific hypothesis and will therefore follow its own specific approach. Obviously some organisms will be more successful than others. Those most successful folks will leave a larger number of successors ready to continue the search from where their progenitors left it, albeit each of them will add their very own twist to the approach they inherited. Hence, the fitter and more promising a strategy proves to be, the more popular it will get, and the more the search will be intensified in its vecinity.

The idea just could not be more brilliant: not only can genetic algorithms be applied to any problem, do not require any other information than each of the hypotheses' fitness, and are especially well suited for extremely complex problems; but, if given sufficient time, they are guaranteed to converge into the freakingly elusive global optimum. Now, if your concern is the time it requires; just relax, Evolution has all the time in the world. Long story short, if genetic algorithms is the strategy Nature follows, we should have little doubt it is the optimal approach to find the optimal solution to this sort of extremely complex problems

It should then be easy to see how barbarian tribes evolved optimal raiding strategies. Once more, those bands which blindly pursued their lust without restrain, digged their own grave. In all likelihood, man tripped over this very same stone endless times,over and over again, until one day something changed: perhaps something went wrong and the raiding party had to retreat, before they could take everything and doom their prey; perhaps someone noticed that they had already killed several golden-eggs gooses, and they were slowly running out of them; perhaps a chief came to feel unbearably appalled by all that horrific, vicious savagery, bloodbath and cruelty; perhaps the raiding expedition was just ill-conceived and ultimately not entirely successful; perhaps...

      

Of course, it is always still possible to argue, that ultimately there was always an intelligent agent behind the steering wheel of all these choices. Not unlike the existence of some Supreme Creator, as stated earlier, it is impossible to prove there is not any such intelligent agent responsible for our insightful and not so insightful choices. Just because no one has yet found the freaking intelligent-agent thing and spelled out how it works, it means that it does not exist. I could, for instance, point out that no intelligent-agent theory can explain how parasitic pathogens found a happy medium between aggressive and beatifically accommodating strategies; but the counter-argument would be straightforward: parasitic pathogens evidently do not have an intelligent agent; but human beings obviously do. 

Evolutionary theories are easily, mistakenly identified with determinism, and are so often rejected outright by many scholars on ideological grounds. The existence of free will is certainly a cardinal principle of any religion; thus, any deterministic theory - to the extent that it is incompatible with the concept of free will - is simply strictly unacceptable to a religious person. However, evolutionary theories do not necessarily negate the existance of free will. Everybody is certainly free to take whatever choices he or she wishes. All what evolutionary theories say is that those who make bad choices are very likely to disappear sooner or later.  

This is so much so, that Evolution is not even in contradiction with the existence of a Supreme Creator. Namely, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that God created Nature and designed the rules that govern it. The dynamics running Evolution are certainly simple; but they are nevertheless most absolutely brillian, definitely a superb act of supreme genius. Indeed, as simple as we may now say there are, it took us thousands of years to figure them out. THe proponents of the Intelligent Design Theory certainly have a point, when they contend this world is just too perfect, that could not have originated by pure chance. Who could have ever imagined such simple dynamics would lead to such miraculously beautiful patterns?

Viewed in this light, neither Evolution nor the model that I here propose necessarily negate the existence of the soul. Indeed, it is possible to conceive the sould as the agglomeration of our feelings of love, hate, joy, anger, loneliness, fear, excitement, etc.. These feelings are the driving forces tilting the scales of our decisions. THe fundamental point of the model is that our actions are not choices made by any intelligent agent; but result from the competition held among a number of different alternatives. Whichever alternative wins the competition becomes the system's new plan of action. Obviously, depending on our feelings and concerns at a given time, an action will be more or less fit. In other words, the purpose of this scientific model is to explain how intelligent behavior emerges. Humans have until now answered this question, assuming some intelligent agent responsible for our choices must exist inside our brains. However, after having studied the brain, no evidence has ever been found of any such agent. Moreover, importantly enough, there is no need to make this kind of assumption, in order to come up with an answer to how does intelligent behavior emerge; rather, it is possible to explain it scientifically. In fact, the observation of analogous miraculously beautiful patterns in the simplest of micro-organisms, speaks to the fact that no intelligent agent is required to produce intelligent behavior.

Yes, in all fairness, one has to admit, there are certainly significant differences between human beings and parasitic pathogens: namely, humans have a brain and parasitic pathogens do not. Hence humans are capable of a whole lot of intellectual functions, which are strictly unattainable to pathogens. Thus, it is not without reason that anyone could argue that humans were blessed with an intelligent agent, whereas pathogens were not. Just because no one has yet found the freaking intelligent agent and spelled out how it works, it means that it does not exist.

We then do not have to rack our braines to imagine how the barbarians' intelligent agent may have intervened in the acquisition of sustainable raiding strategies. It goes without saying, when it comes to intelligent agents, it all always boils down to an aha moment. Evidently, at some point someone must have paused for a minute and begun thinking, what was exactly what they were doing. It then definitely stood to reason that, by demolishing the means of subsistance of their preys, they were basically pooping right where they were eating. Once this realization had been made, the tricky part must have been how to spread the new knowledge across the field. Undoubtedly, language must have played a crucial role. Since barbarians very rarely developed a writing system, we cannot trust the new magical raiding recipe was ever written down and desseminated for everybody to learn. However, we cannot have any doubt that those at the top were sure to soon create oral traditions and legends extending through generations to come. Stories would soon start being pass down from parents and grandparents to children, recreating the memorable day our mythical hero's intelligent agent had the legendary aha moment. Admittedly, not everybody would have been blessed with a vibrant intelligent agent and some folks would have struggled a bit digesting the concept's logic; however, the system will nevertheless work so long these unwashed masses follow the chosen ones' directions.

    

Now, considering all the intellectual resources humans have at their disposal, what strikes as truly miraculous is how on Earth may parasitic pathogens be able to achieve analogous results. Indeed, how could it be at all possible to exhibit the kind of lookout into the future required to devise long term plans and strategies, without any long-term memory, language, planning and reasoning neural mechanism or, if you so prefer, any intelligent agent? All the evidence indicates the answer lies in the DNA and genetic algorithms. The DNA codes the dynamics the organism is going to follow, and genetic algorithms tinker and fine-tune said dynamics, so that they lead to the optimum long-term strategy. Regardless of the degree of complexity an optimum long-term strategy may involve, Evolution's 'survival of the fittest- rule will be sure to slowly converge into it. As a matter of fact, we should understand Evolution's development of the central nervous system as nothing but the ultimate expression of this very principle. Indeed, the brain evidently allows the design of far richer dynamics. One excellent example of this is Love:

Love: let us work together and live forever happy!

Needless to say, the most straightforward plan to reach one's goals is to just go for it as hard as you can. However, as we have seen, such a direct approach often ends up bringing some negative long-term consequences and taking a more circuitous route turns out to be smarter in the long run. Clearly, if you feel any affection for the goose that lays the golden eggs, you will be less inclined to kill it, for all you would enjoy some delicious goose roast. Whether we like it or not, nothing will ever make us feel happier than the love of the people around us. The drive for, and expression of, love and affection indeed leads to many different patterns of behavior. For instance, a male organism who reaches sexual climax after offering some food, will be inclined to repeat the same generous conduct in the future. On the other hand, a female organism will very much welcome the approach of an organism, whom she had previously received food from. Furthermore, a male who reaches sexual climax after having been lovingly greeted , will soon learn that it is worth to put some effort in corresponding to such warm gestures of affection. As a result of all this, since male and females are naturally inclined to work together in some sort of symbiosis, two-gender species enjoy an evolutionary edge over one-gender species. Moreover, a female will be fitter, if she feels attracted to those strong , well-built males likely to be skilled hunters and, therefore, reliable providers of food. Analogously, a male will have a greater chance to have his genetic code transmitted to the next generation, if he feels attracted to the kind of healthy-looking, well-built female likely to produce him a large offspring.

The array of conducts fostered by the drive for love and affection, however, extends far beyond those associated to sexual relationshipps. Indeed, we learn most of our conducts as a consequence of our eternal quest for our mother's love. Clearly, we learn most of our behaviors during our childhood and there is nothing that a child needs more than its mother's love. In fact, a child's odds to survive and flourish are significantly correlated to the degree to which its mother cares for it, or how else is it going to make it out alive, if mom is not there to provide for all its needs? Anything we do, if mom laughs, kisses us or gives us a big hug, the child will be sure to repeat it; whereas, if it upsets her, the child will think twice before it does it again. We so learn to ask for things politely, to be considerate for other folks' needs and feelings, to share our stuff with the people around us, to cherish the relationships with our buddies, etc.. There is a good case to be made that our eternal mortifying yearning for moral purity originates when during our childhood it got deeply drilled in our minds, that mom would not love us as much, if we are not a good person. A further easy case sustains that jealousy and rivalry against our siblings are due to our lifelong competition to become mom's favorite. If only to please her and get her approval, we will swear to love them to bits, and, eventually, even go to great lengths to support and aid them as much as we can. After all, mom swears they love us too, does she not?; moreover, do they not? Regrettably, as families are these days getting smaller and most children barely have any siblings - if any at all -, there is no motivation to learn the most crucial of all skills, the one that contributes to our happiness the most: how to win the love of the people around us. Rather, mom has been lectured by the most learned among us, that we all expect her to love the kid no matter how naughty its conduct may be, and so the lovely little monster is nowadays who runs the show. Now, let us wait for it to grow up and become self-sufficient, and we will see how much it still cares for its mother. It is one more example speaking to the chaotic complexity of our world: one tiny shift here has a cosmic impact over there. In order to tackle the threat of overpopulation, the educated elite designed a plethora of strategies to reduce the number of children per family, and now the nightmare has become a population of dysfunctionally self-centered individuals. The educated elite learned from the experience in World War II that the Economy would benefit if women got incorporated into the job market; but, now that women do not need their husbands' financial support, families are not staying together anymore and the nightmare has become a population of dysfunctionally self-centered, self-loving, depressed individuals. In fact, there is an excellent case to be made that love and the need of love is what led mom to develop the desire to have children in the first place.

Fact of the matter is love plays a capital role in most - if not all - of our conducts. Our interactions with any animated thing are sculpted by two basic drives: as living beings that strive to prevail, we have to compete against all other living things. However, it is only smart to try to cooperate with anything that does not stand in our way, seeking our same objectives. Not unlike a tiny nation striving to survive in a wild world, it is only smart to look for alliances with other folks. Those nations who cannot make friends will then feel lonely and fear what the future may bring. Love and the need of love is what drives us to seek cooperation with other beings. Why do we feel more affection for our pets than for most other human beings? Not only do they (much unlike humans) love us unconditionally, but they (much unlike humans) will follow our every command. Why do we feel for disabled folks? Evidently, they are no threat nor rivals in our way; thus, it only makes sense to cooperate with them. The same principle could explain why - even in those cases where we did not maintain any attachment or whatsoever - we feel sad, whenever another living thing dies. Even if it comes to a totally different species, so long it is possible to conceive we could have found some collaboration from the thing, we will deeply regret its lost. It is certainly not a coincidence why social animals make up for the majority of the most evolved species. We stick together because we need each other. As much as we quarrel and compete against one another, we also care for and look after one another. Love is what keeps us together; love is what drives us to work together. When all is said and done, it does not matter whether our love is real or just an illusion; so long our actions speak to it, the system works. Definitely, it is a funny coincidence that the word 'social' comes from the Latin 'socii', those allied Italian peoples fighting alongside the Roman Republic's legions; but against whom the Social War had to be waged, because the friends of the Romans demanded the same rights and privileges, than the citizens of Rome themselves already enjoyed.

In fact, we do not follow the leader seeking the common good and whose ideas are most logical and reasonable; but the one who we (somewhat foolishly) perceive cares the most for us. If it becomes obvious that we cannot make it on top, it is only smart to support the most powerful person, who appears to seek our same objectives. In other words, we will follow the leader who seems to feel the most for us. Basically, we embrace the ideology that fits our interests best. For instance, as much as it is historically very well established that immigration is beneficial to the nation's prosperity, average citizens are typically opposed to the arrival of any foreign workers ready to perform low and middle class jobs for lesser pays. In contrast, those belonging to the nation's economic elite minority, owning the kind of resources that enable them to profit from cheap labor, will surely have a less xenophobic view than their social lessers. Now, immigrants themselves will obviously not understand their new neighbors' hostility, but as soon as they finally recieve citizenship they will be sure to catch up and get to grips with all the problematics that rise from immigration. Much is made of the myth of rhetoric and certain individuals' prodigious persuasion skills to sway the masses; however, nobody gets convinced of any idea, which goes against his or her interests. For instance, if so many folks in the U.S. today have come to believe that their wealthy nation is being invaded by hordes of foreigners, whose aim is only to make a prosperous living out of crime; it is not because any cunning, devious and unscrupulous populist politician ever persuaded them with any such argument. Or, perhaps, these folks also needed somebody to fool them into forgetting that the U.S. took - in the name of freedom - half of Mexico's original territory by fire and sword?

Human beings have so far only known two basic kinds of political systems: autocracies and fake-democratic oligarchies (as well as anything in between). In order to stay on top against the threat of the other big families in the realm, the autocrat will cater the love and support of the majority of the population. Now, favoritism obviously always comes at the expense of others. But who cares for the others, if one is getting the good end of the stick? On the other hand, how special can I be, if I am only one more among all the dictator's children? How much can you love me, if you do not even listen to anything I have to say? Indeed, fake-democratic oligarchies cater the love and support of all those minorities, who find themselves ignored and oppressed by the dictator.

 

There is an excellent case to be made, that ideologies are nothing but a binding mechanism. Folks seeking the same objective come together to join forces. Obviously, unity makes strenth and, if we work together, we will be far more powerful and better able to achieve our goal. Now, is it anything such as different people sharing the very same objective? A shrewd leader is the one, who is able to find an idea, which attracts the interest of as many and as powerful people as possible. Obviously it is great to have many followers; but if they are themselves hopelessly unresourceful, it will not be of much help. On the other hand, it is certainly much better to recruit powerful people to your cause; but good luck convincing any big shot to follow you. Yes, they seek power as you do; but it is power for themselves, not for you. Now, if you can get another human being to believe you truly love or, at least, appreciate her or him,   ; the idea that you both can share power will become far more credible. In fact, enticingly enough, if you are so captivated, chances are you may end up wrapped around her or his little finger. Yes, leaders and followers will swear to profess the most fervent love for one another and, along the process, soon forget the idea that brought them together, let alone the means employed.in the pursuit of supremacy. Then, foolish, it would be of anybody to believe that one's very own interests are not everyone's only real concern. Foolish, it is of the followers to believe that their ideology's leaders are not going to sell them out the very moment the opportunity arises. Foolish, it would be of anyone to believe that the followers were actually unaware of the evil means the ideology's leaders were employing to achieve the group's ends.

OK, so it may be a bit of a stretch to suggest that barbarian raiders felt any love for the agrarian communities they preyed upon, but some abhorrence to all the bloodshed would have certainly been a step in the right direction. In other words, love and the need of love is what clouds our first thought to follow the straight line and sets us out to explore taking some other - albeit more circuitous - less troubling routes. It is certainly entirely possible someone's brain's intelligent agent had an aha moment and subsequently went on cautioning everybody else of the self-destructive consequences down the road of thoroughly and ruthlessly destroying their agrarian preys' means of subsistance. However, the theory according to which someone's brain's intelligent agent's bulb went off, envisioned the nation's future and, from them on, began lecturing everybody on what is the optimal long-term strategy to make a living of leeching off sedentary agrarian communities, is definitely a bit more than what any reasonable and reasoning mind could ever take. Indeed, all the evidence indicates that this kind of intricate and sophisticated knowledge always develops erratically and haphazardly over very long periods of time. One step forward here is then followed by a mishap there, until we eventually arrive at something big. Our brains do not host an intelligent agent smart enough to anticipate the long-term implications of the actions we take. Rather, we are generally only able to comprehend and take note of them after the fact. Chiefs, ancient kings and rulers alike did not spend their time pondering what would be the optimal strategies to run their nation's business. Rather, they just went on military campaign to consolidate their wealth and power and, if they ever put any thought in their nation's business, it was to entice their underlings into investing in the upcoming conquest enterprise. Now, let us be honest, what fool would want to reveal that he just stumble upon the greatest discovery since the invention of peanut butter, if he could as well boast about his superior genius and have everybody worship him for it. 

An excellent example of this is the formation of the Roman Republic. If we were to trust the Roman historians writing several centuries after the fact on the birth of their republic; we would have to believe that the Roman Republic came into being fully fledge, as a result of a giant and magnificent aha moment, by the Roman aristocrats who overthrew the last king of Ancient Rome. However, today there is no doubt that the Roman Republic was a slow and lengthy development, that evolved in fits and starts over hundreds of years. In other words, the aristocrats who orchestrated in the late VI century BC the coup against King Lucius Tarquinius had absolutely no clue of what shape their newborn republic would ultimately take 400 years down the road. Neither is there any basis to believe, that each of the little steps forward leading to the final outcome, were all products of prodigious aha moments. If that had been the case, we would expect that our written Roman sources would have eloquently boasted about them, providing full explanations as of what were the reasonings they were grounded upong and what were the objectives they were expecting to accomplish. Instead, they look more like improvised responses to some bursting complication, which was being confronted at the time.          

For goodness sake, how could anybody sensibly argue that all these social arrangements were the result of a conscious process, which slowly made headway across long periods of hundreds of years, one little genius decision at a time; if - for all the knowledge we have today at our disposal - we still stubbornly refuse to learn from the past and foolishly insist in repeating the same mistakes over and over again. It has never been lost on anybody the kind of horrific bloodbath in which the history of the Roman Republic culminated; and yet the founding fathers of our fake-democratic system could not think of anything better, than to replicate the model and put us again through the ride. If that had not been bad enough, now, as much as we can confirm the replay of the whole classic tragedy, we stubbornly refuse to put our thoughts together and get to grips with the kind of horror we are running towards. Rather we go on pathetically bitching about our most reproachable self-serving politicians, as if they would not be playing the precise, strict role the System assigns to them, and there were a chance we would get any different results if we were to replace them by any other group of people. As it turns out, the educated elite's freaking intelligent agent's bulb keeps missing the realization that same system dynamics are bound to converge into the same outcome. Indeed, if - not unlike the Roman Republic - our system plays a fake-democratic regime, where no central figure can ever assamble sufficient time and political capital to be able to keep within bounds the upper class' wealth and sway; we can only expect social mobility to vanish and the nation's elite (entrenched as it is in its privileged status) to slowly degenerate, until we end up surpassed by, and at the mercy of, the competition, if we do not collapse altogether. Admittedly, however, perhaps it is me who is missing the point entirely; perhaps, the argument is that precisely because it rendered the populace completely defenceless to the abuse and exploitation of the upper class, fake-Democracy's founding fathers' choice was an entirely intentional act... Yikes! I guess it is any living being's natural instinct to seek to the very end its very own, particular interests and benefit; unless it feels some appreciation for the host it leeches off.  

There is no way around it, raiding, piracy and other leeching off modes of subsistance, state formation or social arrangements in general - in all but some very specific exceptions - were not the product of conscious decisions, where the agents had pondered the pros and cons and were fully aware of all the long-term implications that will follow. Rather, over many generations an evolutionary optimization process played out, where a huge population of individuals - clustered in loosely characterized 'etchnic' groups - followed a massive search all across the landscape of survival strategies and practices. Indeed, each of these 'ethnic' groups has its own - loosely defined - way of thinking and doing things. The groups naturally compete against one another; but simultaneously - through exchange of knowledge and information - cooperate with one another. At any given time certain groups will thrive more than others. However, the most successful communities will frequently dig their own grave by "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs". Alternatively, success has always cause societies to engender toxic levels of inequality. Since everybody pulls in the same direction, acutely-hierarchical societies will at first be extremely competitive - so that everybody will be totally ecstatic and mesmerized with their brains' intelligent agent's genius -; but in the long run will stagnate and get stuck. Given their spectacular success, those at the top will not see any reason to innovate and try something new (let alone put any effort into it); but will continue using the good, old recipes. Certainly those at the bottom will be more motivated to pull something new out; but given their destitute status, they will not have any say. As the dominant communities get thus stuck in a so-called "local minimum", the time comes for other groups to flourish. Having been sitting in the sidelines these groups probably have learned and incorporated some of the practices of their formerly thriving, but currently decadent, neighbors. , Yet, assuming they have been able to stay mostly loyal to their ancestral customs and traditions, the group must have remained stabled and preserved a healthy level of equality. In a similar way to a genetic algorithm's crossover operator, the new knowledge added to the ancestral wisdom will in all likelihood produce an overall advancement and more potent strategy of survival, so that all the right conditions will coalesce to propel the community into a period of spectacular growth; but the threat will always remain that the community's success will eventually lead to its demise.

As a matter of fact, oral traditions do not convey the kind of logical reasonings a privileged mind's intelligent agent would have generated; but they typically take more the form of cautionary tales, aimed at shaping the way of thinking, doing things and interacting with the environment. It is always good to keep in mind, that if we do whatever comes first to our mind, we will often run into some problem down the road. It may be a bit of a stretch to argue that barbarian raiders felt any love for the agrarian sedentary communities they preyed upon; but Native American oral traditions show that barbarians, indigenous peoples or - perhaps we should just say - illiterate communities have always been taught from their early childhood the appreciation, even adoration of the natural environment they lived from. Indeed, whether our human hubris likes it or not, we do not go by the ideas and explanations, which our brain's intelligent agent finds more logical or reasonable. Rather, anthropological data on indigenous communities show that - at least until the advent of means of mass communication - humans follow the ideas, views, conducts and practices their ancestors had passed down to them. In fact, not unlike one would expect in an evolutionary optimization process, we inherit the mentality, that naturally leads to the modes of subsistance, strategies and ways of interacting with the environment, which have worked since ancestral times.

It is the group's ethos and culture; probably the best markers by which to define an ethnic group. You see, we do not really know the reasons why, but this is how we view things over here, and how stuff has been done, all since we can remember. It may not stand to reason to think that spirits live in trees, mountains and rivers; you may consider a total non-sense to believe the waters of the river spirit are the source of wisdom and cure of all ills; however, perhaps, you think there is more logic and science in the Western view, in which those who own enough money to hire a powerful attorney, should expect to enjoy a much higher chance to receive a favorable ruling from the justice system? Yes, our perception and understanding of the world is so deeply engrained in our minds, that we never analyze or interrogate them in any way; they are just there, driving our thoughts, conducts and actions. 

According to Graeber and Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything", for XVII-century indigenous North Americans it was as difficult to understand concepts such as obedience, as it would be for us their concept of law and justice, where, not only the culprit, but also his entire lineage or clan was held responsible for the offense and expected to pay some compensation. This view obviously comes to a shock to our Western mentality, where we find most absolutely wrong and unjust that anybody could be held accountable for something he or she has not done. The mistake, however, is to frame this question in moral terms: is it right or is it wrong? If the purpose of a justice system is to uphold the set of moral values, which ensure the good functioning of a society; it is a flawed argument to judge the morality of a specific concept of justice. Indeed, given that our concept of justice is defined by our values (i.e. the kind of society that we want), to our values' eyes, our society's justice system will always be correct. Basically, XVII-century indigenous North Americans' ethical framework will always disapprove our concept of justice, as much as our ethical framework will likewise disapproved theirs. The right and real question is if this is actually the society that we want; or, more specifically, does our society work the way we really want? In that sense, it stands to reason to say that the indigenous North American concept of justice definitely has quite a bit going for it: If we can agree that young men are more inclined to break the rules and these young stallions' insatiable appetite for wealth is generally driven by their relentless urge to impress some girl; it stands to reason that the guys - overdaring as they are - would be more likely to be kept under control, if those who benefit from the illegal action also suffer some consequences for it. On the other hand, it really seens difficult to sustain that our concept of justice works very well, given the much higher levels of criminality of our societies, even though we keep incarcerated a bloodcurdling, ever-growing portion of the population - most of which are men of low socio-economic origin, as a matter of fact -. For millenia we have been arguing about human nature; but from these observations on the levels of criminality and incarceration in Western and indigenous societies, it follows the answer will have to be different depending on what society, and specific group of individuals therein, we are talking about. Considering the numbers, it appears difficult to escape the conclusion, that men of low socio-economic origin are the worst of the worst; but indigenous folks also seem to have been impregnated with some very peculiar human nature of their own, if not casted in a totally different mold altogether. Graeber and Wengrow go to great lengths to prove the rather obvious fact that indigenous folks are capable of conscious thought and reasoning. However, from their magnific and truly enlighting review, it really seems that the question that really warrants consideration is whether we, Western Civilization people, think by ourselves and are capable of rational thinking or just repeat whatever argument we have previously heard from some public opinion leader.

As human societies have slowly grown more hierarchical, our perception and understanding of the world has evolved through four main stages: First we had an animistic view of the universe, where all things - animals, plants, rocks, rivers, weather systems, human handiwork, etc. - was alive, had agency and free will. As just one more creature in this world, we respected, appreciated, often even adored all our companions in the journey of life. Little by little, however, we started believing in a number of more human-like, superpowerful deities, which we worshipped as much as we feared. Given their superior nature, we tried hard to stay in good terms with them; but - not unlike what is the case with a human master - it always seemed impossible to fathom out what on Earth - if anything at all - is that would ever make them happy. Not unlike humans, deities were themselves in constant conflict against one another; thus, if by any chance anybody was able to decipher their ever capricious and delphic, divine designs, whatever pleased one deity was certain to spark the wrath of another. The chain of command completely clarified as we move into the third stage, though. If the universe had been created by a single Almighty, then it all boiled down to earn Its supreme, divine favor. We now knew whose guidance to follow; but, with the advent of the scientific method and rationalism, the most educated among us began to point out, that His account of how things work, was as unconvincing and unreliable, as it was inaccurate and false. Finally, matters came to a head with the American and - even more so decisively - the French revolutions. Under the banner of freedom and rationalism, God was deposed and the divinely-appointed King's head was chopped off. In this fourth stage, everybody is free to believe in God; but Its Kingdom is now restricted to spiritual matters, while all things terrestrial are to be figuered out and determined by the educated elite's privileged brains' intelligent agents. Undoubtedly, Science has now the last word on how things work; but - given that scientists typically speak in a language as cryptic and difficult to fathom out, as that of ancient oracles - mass-Media is here for us to choose a cotarie of experts with the required knowledge and skills to explain everything to us.

  Evidently, as our understanding and knowledge of the world around us has grown ever more complex, it has become increasingly privatized as well. It used to be that the entire community share the same culture and customs: we all understood the world as our ancestors had explained it to us and we all did things in the fashion our ancestors had passed down to us. There is a good case to be made that, if there is any way to define the term 'ethnicity', it is as the group of folks sharing identical perception and understanding of the world, as well as same fashion of doing things.

Little by little, however, some people grew more knowledgeable than others - or so they claimed -, and began exercising their leadership and dominance over the rest of the ethnic group. Thus, to the degree that the community's account of how things work begins to be dominated by a reduced elite of individuals, we can say that the ethnic group's ethos, culture and customs become an ideology; the ethnic group's ideology, indeed. Historians usually refer to 'royal ideology' as the set of beliefs, ideas and practices of how things work, that monarchies used to employ to legitimize their supremacy. Terrified as they are of ever saying anything about our contemporary social system, modern historians will never dare to analyze, not to mention to extend their reasonings, judgements or opinionns, into the present time; but the concept of (system) ideology likewise applies to any system of social organization (with no exception to our current fake-democratic system, obviously). In other words, to the degree that, in the so-called civilized societies, the educated elite is most knowledgeable, it is only natural that they will lecture everybody else on their own account of how things work, the correct and right way of thinking and how stuff needs to be done. After all, Civilization can be best characterized by the mindset whereby human beings behave contrary to what would be their natural instinct; because they have been convinced that, in the long run, it is only smart and it will be in his or her best own interest to act in such an unnatural fashion. You see, it used to be that I had managed to convince you that I was the son of God and, therefore you had to do as I said. But now, since we came to agree that God does not intervene in the Economy, I will just tell you who are the experts whose knowledge you should trust. 

Be it as it may, with or without Civilization, human beings of the past and present follow the system's ideology or the community's ethos and culture, in the same way that organisms follow their DNA's dynamics. Indeed, we do not go by what our brain's intelligent agent finds most logical, reasonable or sound; but whatever we are taught by the wiser and more knowledgeable persons who we feel care for us, whether these are our ancestors, teachers, spiritual guides or Media journalists. For instance, our religious beliefs (or the absence of them), cardinal as they are in defining the way we conduct ourselves through life, are not determined by what our brain's intelligent agent finds most logical, reasonable or sound; but by the views and values, which were inculcated in us during our childhood. Similarly, it is difficult to find anybody in the Western world, who does not believe our so-call Democracy is the best political system ever conceived; whereas folks living under different political systems cannot stop wondering, how there can be so much homelessness and inequality in the West, if our nations are among the wealthiest and most powerful in the world, we enjoy such fantastic levels of scientific and technological development and, most importantly, the government is by the people and for the people.

 

Yes, much is disingenuously said about the government's overbearing power; however, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that the threat of violence has never been an effective long-term strategy to dominate anybody. Rather, as a successful individual - however success is measured in the community at the time -, in order to have folks to do as you say, it is only smart to offer your fully-consolidated and well-proven expert guidance on how to achieve one's every aspiration. Indeed, we follow the educated elite's guidance, with the same ingenuousness and childlikeness that the frog hopes the witch will reveal how her spell works, not to mention how to break it. No matter how much they want us to believe intelligence is a gift of the mind, we do not follow the ideas and explanations, which our brain's intelligent agent finds most logical, reasonable or sound. Rather we think according to, and go by, the core ideology in which we have been raised, and then follow the specific ideology that best fits our interests.

The pernicious effects of the assumption of an intelligent agent operating our minds cannot be overstated. We are so stupidly mesmerized with our genius, that we can no longer see what is just before our nose. We are so absorbed by our hubris, that everywhere we look, we think we can do it so much better. THe world has existed for infinite years, working marvelously, and will continue doing so for infinite more years after we go, unless we manage to screw it all over before we kick the bucket and take the way of the dinosaurs. Gazillions of species have explored over gazillions of generations every possible answer to every possible question, and yet, here we are emending perfection. We are so stupidly taken by our brain's intelligent agent that all what we can think is that it cannot be good, if it was not reasoned out by an intelligent. agent. There is a reason why in all animal species the nose is above the mouth, and the answer is not that an intelligent agent figured it out; but that those species that fail to hit upon the optimal design are very likely to disappear. There is a reason why we have a sense of smell and a sense of taste, and the answer is not to signify one's superior nature over our social lessers; but that those species that fail to hit upon the optimal strategy are very likely to disappear.

A careful analysis of Nature reveals that optimality is always found at a perfect equilibrium between competition and cooperation. A complex system will be in an optimal state, so long the parts that make it up maintain a perfect balance of competition and cooperation among one another. There is in fact a very tight link between optimality and equilibrium. It is certainly difficult to argue that a system is optimal, if it is about to disappear. But, how can we be sure the system is still going to be here tomorrow, if the thing does not stop moving? Given that the flap of a butterfly's wing in one corner of the globe can eventually cause some tornado somewhere else, if ain't broke, don't fix it.

As Scott points out, it had been a shortsighted approach for barbarian raiders to suck their agrarian prey's blood as if there were no tomorrow; however, it had been equally foolish to abandon themselves to the beatifically blind, unconditional and unrestrained, passionate love and care for those folks they needed to leech off. It is certainly good to know the sun will rise again tomorrow; but, if you do not eat today, how do you expect to make it to the next sunrise? In fact, there is a good case to be made, that if barbarian raiders eventually went extinct; it is because they went too soft on their preys. Indeed, not unlike the host that shakes off a parasitic pathogen, sedentary civilized societies took advantage of the breathing room and slack they were allowed, to develop technologies with which to fight off and drive into extinction the barbarian raiders that used to harry them. Goodness gracious, if it were not bad enough to live in such a wild world, we now find it is also maddening complex: You need to compete against all things around you, for you have to nourish yourself; but, as any indigenous North American could tell you, simultaneously you should appreciate and adore all things around you, for you will need to eat tomorrow as well. Definitely, as any barbarian raider could tell you, sometimes it feels like you just can never get it right; either you care too much or you are excessively abusive. But, as any indigenous North American could tell you, a happy medium between competition and cooperation does exist. Now, we can argue until Hell freezes over how did indigenous North Americans find the perfect equilibrium between exploitation and love: perhaps an intelligent agent reasoned it out, perhaps they extracted conclusions after hunting horses to extinction, perhaps... Be it as it may, if they hit the happy medium, don't you think you are so smart that you can fix it.

 

  Since the advent of Civilization, as an elite of privileged individuals rose over everyone else, it became paramount to establish one's superior intellect. How do you expect anybody to follow you, if you do not have a good grasp of how things work? Obviously the ultimate test was the battlefield; but, since it is not practical to fight a battle every day, money would do. After all, if you have a buttload of money,you must have done pretty damn well on the battlefield. Regardless, you cannot be very far off, if you have a big bank account. Now, anybody can hit the jackpot at some point, or just make a fortune by unscrupulous means; but, if, for instance, you know how to appreciate the finest food, your exquisitely distinguished nature will be unquestionable. Yet, who gets to say which is the finest food? Moreover, since when there is some food more exquisite than other?

Yes, there is a good reason why over gazillions of generations animals developed a sense of smell and a sense of taste. Before you take any food in, you want to make sure it is safe and healthy. First, it is only smart to sniff it from a distance. If nothing feels wrong, we can bring it in for a closer analysis. We will still be able to spit it out, should we find it disgusting. If we have not tasted it before or simply cannot recognize what it is, it is natural to be skeptical.

However, if we remember having eaten it before, and nothing went wrong, we will slowly get to like it more and more each time. Now, if the design would not already be good enough, it nothing but keeps getting better. Since our taste buds evolved to associate taste to nutrients and other substances, and we then, during our lifetime, learn to recognize foods by their taste, whenever we are low on certain nutrients, our instinct will crave for the kind of food, where we can get it from. On the other hand, we will feel a lower appetite for any other food high in nutrients, which we do not need as much at the present time. To make a long story short, the design is just supreme. And yet, here are the most exquisite, privileged and gifted among us to sentence that, if we do not know to appreciate the finest food, there is something wrong with our taste buds, or , more precisely, if our taste buds cannot tell the most exquisite food, there is something wrong about us. Something really wrong, indeed: here is the most intelligent species on the face of the planet wholeheartedly following such an ideotic ideology.

 

Yes, for some very awkward reason, since the advent of Civilization, as an elite of privileged individuals rose over everyone else, the society's dominant way of thinking has not stopped blowing its own trumpets over the marvels of the human brain (at least some most privileged individuals'), as much as it has expressed contempt and deep repugnance for human nature (at least some most vulgar folks'). Definitely, the System's ideology dictates and imposes what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad, what is beautiful and what is despicable, who is right and who is wrong, who is good and who is bad, who is beautiful and who is despicable... Strikingly enough, with the passing of time, as the System's ideology has grown more and more intense and pervasive, human brain's hubris has intensified to the same degree that the criticism on human nature has excaladed more severe, overbearing and moralizing. Yes, at times it feels as not even the most basic aspects of our nature are free from fault. For instance, Hommer Simpson will never feel any appreciation for Marge's prodigious brain. Execrably and reprehensibly enough, men only care about women's looks. Women, on their part, should not feel content surrending themselves to a vanilla, as unadventurous as uninspiring, ordinary, mundane, dull, insipid, degrading run-of-the-mill life as a housewife, comfortably sitting at home, unwarily expecting her husband to provide for her every need and desire. Rather, women should dream and pursue their dreams. Definitely, every self-respecting woman should get a paid job outside the home and be financially independent of her overbearing, insensitive and unappreciative man. 

As much as journalists work day and night, striving to educate us on how to be better citizens, indefatigably going to any length necessary to fix each and all of our countless faults, all efforts seem to be hopeless. Fake-Democracy is such a fantastic political system; but, how is the Government By The People ever going to work well, if we are so caitiff, immoral and ignoble? Goodness gracious, we thought the King's clergy was insufferably and oppressingly moralizing! I guess, if such an odious ideology has become so powerful, it must be for there are some people, who benefit lavishly from it. Yet, one can only wonder, if human nature is so awful, how did the human species come to be so successful, to the extent that we consider ourselves God's most precious creation? Indeed, why has it never occured to anybody that if we have achieved such fantastic and stunning levels of development, security and comfort; it is exactly because of how we are? In other words, if Mother Nature had made us any different, we had never made it this far. Definitely, if ain't broke, don't fix it. We are certainly free of straying away from the rules of nature, but we will then stray away from the optimal designs. The key question is therefore: what are the rules of Nature? Absolutely, the right question is not what is happiness, but how to be happy. The right question is not whether they love me or not, but how to win the love of the people that matter to us. The right question is not what is intelligence, but how to act intelligently.

In "The Dawn of Everything", Graeber and Wengrow make a fascinating review of all the different social arrangements observable in indigenous communities past and present all around the globe. Graeber and Wengrow exhibit little doubts in their belief that all these patterns are conscious choices made by self-conscious, intelligent human agents. There is, however, no evidence to support any such claim. True, it is usually said the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; but there is a trick to the argument, which is always missed: namely, since it is impossible to prove the inexistence of anything, it is likewise impossible to gather any conclusive evidence to prove the inexistence of anything. In fact, Graeber and Wengrow finish their book sentencing: "We are surrounded by myths". But, the absence of evidence in support of any myth, is evidence of the falsity of any myth?

According to the U.S. National Park Services' website, for thousands of years, Native North Americans (as many other indigenous peoples all around the globe) "used fire to clear areas for crops and travel, to manage the land for specific species of both plants and animals, to hunt game, and for many other important uses." However, as deforestation became a matter of concern in the XIX and XX centuries, men of science and letters raised their voices against these fire practices, to the extent that the U.S. government eventually adopted a "fire suppression policy" outlawing intentional burnings. Over the last decades the dominant way of thinking has changed, though; to the extent that we no longer speak of "intentional burnings", but refer to this practice by the more romantic name of "cultural burning". Indeed, today, still according to the U.S. government, we have come to understand there are many benefits to cultural burning: First, burning helped clear undergrowth, allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor and promoting the growth of specific plants important for food, medicine, and cultural materials, such as berries, medicinal herbs, native grasses, basketry materials like hazel shoots, and acorn-producing oaks and chestnuts. Second, clearing undergrowth and fostering new growth in turn improved foraging conditions for game animals, attracting deer, elk, and bison to desirable areas. It also supported populations of animals that relied on specific plants or conditions created by fire, such as rodents, turkeys, and bears. Reducing dense underbrush made it also easier for people to move through forests, track game, and hunt more effectively. In addition, fire could help manage populations of pests like insects and ticks, as well as control plant diseases. Last but not least, regular, controlled burns reduced the accumulation of dead vegetation and flammable materials, preventing the occurrence of larger, more destructive wildfires. 

Now, if cultural burning has so many great benefits, why were we civilized peoples so adamantly against it? The first answer that comes to mind is that indigenous peoples must have not been able to spell out, why they conducted these fire practices. If that had been the case, it would speak against Graeber and Wengrow's line of thinking, whereby cultural burning had been a conscious choice. Yet, it does not seem reasonable to think that indigenous folks were not aware of, at least, some of the pros. For instance, they must have known that it made it easier to move through forests, track game, and hunt more effectively. In fact, this may be a plausible explanation of how the practice originated: they may have lighted a fire to clear a way through the forest and later realized some additional positive consequences. For that sake, however, the fire must not have needed to be intentional; but could bery well have been due to natural causes. Be it as it may, the problem then should have been that the explanations given by the indigenous people )whichever these had been) should have not moved our mens of science and letters. The concern (theirs and ours) was, and still is, deforestation, and it was therefore of little significance (and, needless to say, it still is), whether Native Americans' fire practices facilitated hunting and travel, enhanced wildlife habitat and food sources, or promoted the growth of specific plants important for food, medicine, and cultural materials. Evidently, here again, the mistake is to frame this kind of arguments in moral terms: are Native Americans' fire practices good or bad? Obviously whatever is good for certain people has very often negative consequences for other folks. Needless to say, if we came to appreciate intentional burnings, and so began referring to it as 'cultural burning' or 'prescribed burning',; it is because scientists eventually realized, that it helped preventing catastrophic wildfires. It shows that, contrary to common belief, Science - one more of those myths - does not always have the correct answer to everything. In fact, scientists never all agree on anything; but there are always opposing views. This is, however, not meant as a criticism against scientists for their failure to understand, how cultural burning could reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. In this truly chaotic world of ours, it is basically impossible to know beforehand, what will be all the consequences resulting from a given action. Indeed, let us be honest, how on earth could have anyone ever imagined that burning forests may actually help to prevent deforestation? How on Earth anyone may be able to predict all the tornados the flap of a butterfly wing will trigger over the next weeks? It does, however, speak against Graeber and Wengrow's line of thinking, whereby the practice of culture burning had been a conscious choice. If XX-century scientists, with all the knowledge and resources nowadays at our disposal, were not able to realize, that burning forest could reduce the risk of wildfires, it certainly seems difficult to see, how indigenous folks all over the globe, living thousands of years ago, had such an aha moment. Of course, when it comes to aha moments, we can never rule out the possibility (it only takes to believe...); but, if only for deforestation was not even a concept that anybody knew of thousands of years ago, it does not make any sense, that anybody could have factored any such idea in his or her reasonings. At the end of the day, however, we will never be able to find a definite answer to, whether cultural  (or prescribed) burning was an entirely conscious choice, or indigenous peoples only stumbled upon it. In all likelihood, the solution to the conundrum lies somewhere in between. Indeed, as a general rule, all what seems safe to say is that we may often be able to anticipate the most immediate effects of our actions; but we will only realize many other consequences after the fact, while there will still be a third group of long-term implications, which we will ignore and will only come to grasp after a long time has passed and we have accumulated abundant experience with the phenomenon in question. 

 

In fact, Graeber and Wengrow's enlightening review on indigenous peoples' political systems and social arrangements shed quite some light on how such choices of social organization may have emerged. As Graeber and Wengrow point out, Native American communities in Central and Eastern North America exhibited in the XVII and XVIII centuries a clear and strong ethos opposed to social inequality. This was so much so that "even finding terms to translate concepts like ‘lord’, ‘commandment’ or ‘obedience’ into indigenous languages: proved to be incredibly difficult for the first European missioners and explorers to come in contact with these indigenous North American peoples. Thus, it was not really that they refused to recognize other people's inherent superior nature, or that they chose to disobey anybody who dared to make such a claim of superiority; rather, they just could not conceive such ideas, they were simply incapable of understanding such concepts, for the simple reason that nobody had ever taught them anything of that sort. Clearly, it was not part of their conceptual framework, because their ancestral traditions did not conceive that there could be some individuals more intelligent than others. For sure there was an understanding that the oldest folks in the community were more experienced and wiser; but - much unlike in our Western traditions - nobody was inherently superior. Obviously, unless you had no other choice, why would you ever want to obey anybody, who you do not recognize more intelligent than yourself?  

The question then becomes where could this wonderful mentality come from? Graeber and Wengrow suggest the answer may trace back to Cahokia. In the early second millenium, the city of Cahokia rose in the neighborhood of today's St. Louis as the largest and most influential urban settlements of the Mississippian culture, which developed complex societies across much of what is now the Central and Southeastern U.S.. Albeit now forgotten and vastly ignored by most of us, Cahokia was one of those impressive and publicly admired civilizations, featuring stunning monumental constractions and fascinating scientific and technological development. Not unlike any other big civilization of the past, the story did not end well at all. Although nobody knows what exactly happened, archeological findings suggests that the overbearing power exerted by the Cahokian elite may have led to a catastrophic political upheaval. Be it as it may, it seems the whole experience was rather traumatic. In fact, Graeber and Wengrow recount the emergence in the succeeding centuries of popular legends and oral traditions, cautioning the new generations against the rise of any overbearing group of people. Clearly, the Devil knows more for being old than for being smart or powerful. That was the power of ancestral oral traditions: they extended the wisdom and valuable memories of the community's most experienced folks into endless generations. Undeniably, the details got blurred and disappear with time, but the core of the message, the moral of the story, always survived. Then, having been set on the right track, with all that experience at our disposal, it becomes much easier to fathom out how things work. Now, did anybody reasoned it out in advance or it only was understood after the fact? Is it someone's bulb going off or is it the community's ethos and culture driving our thoughts in the same fashion that the DNA operates the organism's functions and behaviors? Admittedly, when it comes to aha moments, we can never rule out any possibility; but one thing is at least certain: it is only stupid to repeat the same choice of the past, knowing it had fatal consequences.

Definitely, it is critical to learn from mistakes; however, if the mistake takes one to the grave, it is a little bit too late to learn anything. This is where the community's ethos and culture comes in handy, though. That is how we became more knowledgeable or - if you prefer the intelligent-agent line of thinking - a whole lot smarter; at least those adhering to such way of thinking, that is. One step forward here is then followed by a mishap there. Yes, the ideology, our way of thinking, may not always be correct. Quite the opposite, our ideas of how things work very often will be misguided; particularly so if said ideas have been imposed by some special-interest elite group; rather than by the community's ancestors. I mean, for sure the Cahokian elite did not share the belief, that they were not of superior nature than the rest of the people. However, even if one community's ideology's flaws end up having fatal consequences, hopefully, just hopefully, some other community following a different ideology will learn from the mistake, and continue from there the optimization process of our understanding of how things work.

An evolutionary model of this kind does not only explain, how indigenous North American's communities evolved an ethos and culture of opposition to the rise of any elite of privileged families, but also how ancient barbarian raiders came to find a happy medium and, at last, spared the life of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Indeed, regardless of how exactly the realization occured, if the new knowledge does not get one way or another transmitted into the next generations, it will obviously be lost with the passing of the genius that gave it birth. Whether some big shot reasoned out in advance that they werd digging their own grave, some folk came to fathom out that the neighbors had killed their goose that lays the golden eggs, or it was just that the guys simply did not know how to slaughter the freaking goose, the new piece of information needs to make it into the community's collective mind, or it will disappear and all that prodigious intellectual effort would be to no avail.

The barbarian raiders better do not let all that intellectual effort go to waste, because it would only be foolish to think that love for the goose will be enough to keep them from killing it. Now, if we cannot trust love will save us from digging our own grave, it behoove us to follow the example of the barbarian raiders (for that sake the indigenous peoples' as well) and study past experiences, reason out where things may have gone wrong and so fathom out the rules of Nature. Indeed, If it is a bit of a stretch to argue that barbarian raiders felt any love for the sedentary communities they preyed upon; it should be likewise a bit of a stretch to argue that big corporations could feel any true love for their customers. For instance, certainly nobody is saying that big pharmaceutical corporations wish death to any of their customers; but love, real love ...that is, you know... what you and mean love, would be a bit of a stretch to define a big corporation's 'feelings'. As any libertarian could explain, there is no logical reason to hate pharmaceutical corporations, for - if only for their own interests - they will always care for the patient's life almost as much as the patient herself. Evidently, if she dies, they will not be able to make any more money from her. However, if we follow the libertarian's logic, we will have to likewise conclude that pharmaceutical corporations will be equally adversed to achieving the patient's full recovery; for, once she is completely cured, they will not be able to make any more money from her. This is certainly not meant to chastize the ethics of pharmaceutical corporations, since - given how things work in this world - they have little other choice; unless they do not mind to die, that is. As any barbarian raider could explain, just because you accept to dig your own grave, it does not mean that others will do it as well. In other words, by the sheer rules of Nature, whichever pharmaceutical corporation puts its patients' health and wellbeing before its business interests is destined to go out of business sooner or later.; and so the only corporations that will survive will be those which keep their business front and center. To make a long story short, by the sheer rules of Nature, if health care is left in the hands of capitalist private corporations, the system will naturally converge into a 1984 world, where human beings are kept chronically ill and under heavy medication for as long as possible; yikes! By the way, does anybody know how come (non-embrionic) stem-cell therapies are confronted with such insurmountable obstacles and belligerent opposition, despite the fact that there is a scientific consensus - as unique and extraordinary as overwhelming -, that stem-cells are a much safer and effective treatment than pharmaceutical drugs and prostheses? Yikes!

Well, given these dreadful prospects, we may want to reconsider if, after all, perhaps, barbarian raiders could actually have felt genuine love for the sedentary communities they were leeching off... You see? I told you! love is at the very heart of human nature, all our actions ultimately circle around love and it is only because we are this way that we have achieved such fantastic and stunning levels of development, security and comfort. In fact, we would not even be here anymore, if it were not for love. Yet, you thought that I was only full of it, did you not?

Unfortunately, our world today is in the hands of giant overpowering private corporations, and these - other than insatiable greed - definitely are not known to have any comprehension of any feelings, let alone feel any love. And, if by any chance they do, their actions most certainly do not speak to it. Quite to the contrary, heartless as they are, corporations strictly follow the System's ideology to the letter, word by word, as it flows from the lips of the financial markets. Absolutely, you do not need me to tell you, that money is at the very core of our system's ideology. In our fake-democratic world, everything circles around money. In fact, money makes the world go around. True, money does not bring happiness, but it helps. It actually feels like a million bucks; but money does not grow on trees. Money talks, indeed. Long story short, as any reckless, self-liquidating, careless and heartless barbarian raider would say, all what matters is money. But you did not need anybody to tell you, did you? You already knew all this, did you not?

Indeed, as children we are told by our elders about the supreme importance of money: it does not bring happyness but it certainly helps. Remarkably, as Graeber and Wengrow relate in their fascinating recount on the indigenous critique to Western Civilization, it is basically the opposite advice youths in indigenous North America (for that matter anywhere in the indigenous world) used to received; at least until Europeans started lecturing everybody on how things actually work. There is a clear and strong difference between them and us, though: the teachings we receive do not come from any ancestral wisdom; but we go by what we are told in school, Church and the Media. This obviously gives us a much wider view of the entire world. OK, indigenous folks may argue that their superior knowledge on the benefits of prescribed burning proves they are actually smarter than us; but we know well that the reality is a bit more complex. We go by the historical and scientific facts, after - as methodically as rigorously and thoroughly - collecting and analyzing all the data and evidence. Indigenous oral traditions may have been able to extract some incredibly valuable insights on how things work from the Cahokian nightmare; but - as eye-opening or enlightening as the Cahokian episode may have been - our historians and archeologists have been researching and studying all sorts of civilizations and peoples from all ages from all around the world. Those who believe in the existence of certain people gifted with a privileged brain, may still be ready to give that Native Americans' ancestors should have included some truly extraordinarily-beautiful minds; but, when all was said and done, who wiped out whom?

    

Except all our data coincides point by point, and confirms word by word the indigenous North Americans' observations on Cahokia. Indeed, it is not known of one single big civilization, that has been able to maintain for more than a few centuries a state of widespread growth, prosperity and wellbeing. It is not just that all big civilizations (for that matter all complex societies in general) have failed; but most of them - not unlike Cahokia - ended catastrophically. Western historians are particularly well acquainted with the Roman Empire and its Carthaginian nemesis. In this context, especially informative is a well-known anecdote from Rome's final victory. - As Mike Dunkin relates in "The Storm Before The Storm" - as the commanding Roman general stood watching Carthage burn, "Scipio reflected on the fate of this once great power. Overcome with emotion, he cried. His friend and mentor Polybius approached and asked why Scipio was crying."

"A glorious moment, Polybiius; but I have a dread foreboding that some day the same doom will be pronounced on my own country." Scipio then quoted a line from Homer: "A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish, And Priam and his people shall be slain."

As Mike concludes, "Scipio knew that no power endures indefinitely, that all empires must fall." And fall Rome did, indeed; and fall they all did, indeed.

It is certainly questionable if the conversation really ever took place - the details get usually blurred with time -; but the core message, the moral of the story of Scipio's (true or just purely fictional) forboding did not only survive, but proved to be incredibly prophetic; since that memorable day of Rome's final victory - as historians have long recognized - marked the exact time all Hell broke loose and things started going down the drain for the Roman Republic. Indeed, with the death of Carthage, Rome gained full control over the fabulous gold and silver mines in Spain. As it always happens, the exuberant influx of riches totally ruined the Roman Republic. As it always happens, wealth always sticks to the fingers of just a few, and - as any indigenous North American could tell you - the resulting grotesque inequality sowed the seeds of destruction of the Roman Republic.

        

It is not likely that Scipio's forboding had been a coincidence. There is a good case to be made, that our instinct is continuously and tirelessly making projections into the future. It is just that in most cases, the predicted reverberations are not relevant enough to attract the attention of our reason. Obviously, we only get weather alerts when something big is going to happen. Otherwise, if the prospects look good, we just feel happy. Now, not always is it convenient to listen to our gut. It is good and all to care for what the future may bring; but before we start thinking about tomorrow, we need to eat today. 

It is certainly understandable that Scipio did not take his forboding more seriously. Definitely, not only nobody would have understood, but undoubtedly everybody have got outraged, if he had called off the siege and spare Carthage from its fatal fate. In all likelihood he would have been accused of treason and very severely punished for it. Besides, there is no way he could have known that becoming the hegemon of the Mediterrenean would lead to the inequality cause of his nation's destruction.

       

It is , however, as inexplicable as outright stupid to repeat the same choice of the past, knowing it had fatal consequences. Indeed, knowing as they knew full well about the utter disaster of the Roman Republic - as evidenced by the unabating political upheaval and horrific civil wars that led to its catastrophic collapse -, it is simply unforgivable that the founding fathers chose to follow the example for the new nation. It was not just a choice between the lesser of to evils - namely, monarchy or oligarchy -; but the new system was designed to the model of the Roman Republic. Granted that the founding fathers had not been raised under any ethos or culture contrary to inequality. Quite the opposite, all civilizations' ideologies have always exalted the superior nature of an elite of 'aristocratic- individuals over the rest of the population. Indeed, the 'aristos' were the 'best' in the society. In fact, if there has ever been any concern with inequality, it has been to caution those who matter in the society against the rise of any authoritarian figure - a so-called tyrant -, who could abuse the other aristocrats and dare to curtail the freedoms of the lords to dispose of their social lessers as they saw fit. For instance, the medieval French aristocracy saw as an intolerable, outrageous encroachment on their freedoms, King Louis IX's relentless efforts to prosecute Enguerran (Lord of Coucy), for hanging three boys caught poaching rabbits in the aristocrat's forests: ‘Sweet France can no longer be called that’, lamented the lyrics of a song addressed to France’s nobles. ‘Now she is known as the land of subjects… I would much prefer to remain master of my fief.’ (excerpt from Justine Firnhaber-Baker's excellent book: "House of Lilies").

Remarkably, the discourse is definitely strikingly analogous to that of our revolutionary founding fathers. After all, if the landed, slave-owning colonial aristocracy had (in the name of freedom) revolted and called their social lessers into war against the English tyrant King, for his relentless efforts to collect taxes from them; no one can call oneself to any surprise, that they had the same ideas and views on how the world should work. Evidently, we do not adopt the ideas which our brain's intelligent agent finds more logical; but just go by the mentality we have been raised on, and only later may adapt it to whatever fits our interests best. In fact, in the Bill of Rights, there is not a single so-called right meant to ensure equal opportunities among all the people of the nation (that is, equal access to good education, health care, justice, etc.). Rather, they are only conserned with restricting the power of the government and protecting those suspected of having broken the Law. You see... the government can never be trusted, especially so if the government is by the people.

Probably the best and most obscene example of our ideology's exaltation of inequality is the right to legal representation. The sheer concept of the right speaks to its contradiction: if a counsel is necessary in order to receive a fair trial, it means the scales can be tilted. The veredict will not only weigh in the evidence and the facts, but the counsel's arguments as well. In fact, if so much emphasis is placed on the right to legal counsel, it is obviously because its weight is not just anecdotal, but decisive. There is obviously a reason why the very fake-Democracy's courts stress so much the advice of hiring a good attorney. Now, that would all be all right, if everybody could have equal access to a "good attorney"; but, since attorneys are as good as high their fees are, only those privileged with a bank account, will get the court's ears. In other words, under fake-Democracy justice is for sale.   

 

At the beginning of the second millennium B.C., tyrant King Hamurabi of Babylon elaborated in Ancient Mesopotamia one of the first legal codes in human history, in order to "protect the people, especially the weakest among them, from the strongest, who constantly prey on them." Regrettably, 4000 years later the legal system has degenerated to the degree, that now it is the strongest who employs the courts to abuse the weakest. The old Medieval Church used to sell indulgences to the wealthiest individuals to save them a place in Heaven. In contrast, today it is possible to hire a 'powerful' lawyer with a good connection with the District Crook, in order to have one's own paradise right here on Earth. To make a long story short, fake-Democracy offers the best justice your money can buy.

 

Definitely, we do not have to worry about barbarian raids anymore; violence is no longer an acceptable venue to resolve disputes. Lords are now business people and they are willing to negotiate with the commonfolk. If, by any chance, we consider we have been scammed or somehow taken for a ride, we are free to take the matter to the crooks system. If we decide to go through the expense and trouble, we will find in horror, that the District Court will systematically resolve the dispute in favor of the party paying the most money in attorney fees. In other words, under the new fake-democratic system, the wealthiest families will get ever richer, whereas the poorest families will get ever poorer. Given that these are the basic dynamics of a fatal thermal runaway, we can only wonder, what kind of fool may like such a toxic and destructive ideology. Why do our brains' intelligent agents struggle so much to get to grips with the fact, that the goose that lays the golden eggs is going to die, if it gets leeched off to its very last drop of blood?

Now, it is certainly lamentable that our founding fathers had such an odious mentality; but as bad as these news are, the good news is that we do not go by our ancestral traditions anymore, but we go by the historical and scientific facts, and this obviously gives us a much wider view of the entire world. True, unless we go to graduate school, rarely ever are we able to have direct access to any scientist or true historian, but Media offers us the opportunity to listen to those experts at the cutting edge of human knowledge. We certainly need to be careful who we listen to; given all the scams and crazy conspiracies out there, it is not like you can just trust anybody. Yet, whether we like it or not, we definitely need a good expert's insight, because this worl is so freakingly complicated, that, without it, it is basically impossible to form oneself a clear idea on the world's big issues. For instance, how on Earth is anyone going to know, whether tariffs are good or bad in the long run for the Economy? If tariffs are detrimental to international trade, it stands to reason that, in the short term, they will have a negative impact. However, if tariffs discourage corporations from outsourcing jobs and manufacture, then it would be good for the national economy in the long run. Yet, it is questionable to what extent raising tariffs will actually persuade big companies to bring their business back home. Besides, high tariffs are likely to raise inflation, and, as far as we know, the experts consider that to be negative... Long story short, it is just too complicated; however, there is still something we can be certain about: the way things work, if your livelihoods depend on international trade, you will adamantly think tariffs are bad for the Economy, as much as you will adamantly think they are good for the Economy, if your job has been, or is about to be, outsourced overseas.

Now, if we depend on mass-Media to gather all the facts required, in order to be able to form ourselves a clear idea on the big issues; - given that mass-Media is controlled by the wealthiest families in the society - it follows that the way of thinking Media is going to promote is the upper class' view of how things should work. Horror of horrors! We put the fox to guard the hen house! Indeed, it is not just that everybody in the Media keeps repeating over and over again that our so-called Democracy is the best system ever conceived, and on every election day they fervently encourage us to go to the polls to cast our votes and defend our "wonderful Democracy'; but they share the exact same mentality and ideological mindset than our oligarchical, landed, slave-owning founding fathers; namely, there are some people, who is more intelligent, talented or simply better than others and they deserve all what they got, because they must have worked really hard for it. These superbly gifted individuals should be totally free to amass the most obscenes fortunes, because the wealth they keep for themselves is nothing compared to what they create for the nation. It is the idea behind the American Dream, signature of our fake-democratic fatherland: If you are talented and work hard, it is promised you will be sumptuously successful. Admittedly, it would not seem to unreasonable too consider unpatriotic and perfidious anything but full adherence to such a lofty principle, if it were not because it hides a grim unspoken corollary; namely, if you did not achieve success, it is because either you never worked much or you are rather dumb, or - most likely - both of them together. Thus, don't you bitch about the nation and go on pathetically whining about the lack of opportunities you received; for not only is it unpatriotic, but you only have yourself to blame for your sorry state of affairs. Needless to say, neither is there ever made any mention of the ghastly horror shows that one day after another play out in the abominable, monstrous and truly repugnant, evil Crooks System, thanks to our founding fathers heinous privilege to legal counsel and get out of jail card. To make a truly grotesque and monstrous story short, under the current fake-democratic system, kids born to wealthy families receive all the opportunities necessary to succeed, whereas kids born to poor families find nothing but hurdles in their way; so that - when all is said and done - the wealthiest families will get ever richer, whereas the poorest families will get ever poorer. It then certainly does not take the brightest bulb in the room, nor the sharpest pencils among us to understand why inequality has soared to such grotesque levels.

Unfortunately, we cannot even hope that love will finally come to save the day for the goose that lays the golden eggs, from the barbarian raiders' reckless voracity. The problem is obviously not that mass-Media journalists are nothing but heartless individuals, who do not care for us; but are only concerned with indoctrinating the citizenship into the values and ideology , which serve the basis for the exploitation of the commonfolk by the upper class. Of course journalists care for us, or have you not seen how devastated they are whenever there is any calamity. OK, if you have ever tried to bring any issue to the Media's attention; - unless it was a case of political corruption - chances are you may have been greatly disappointed with the cold response you received (assuming you received any response at all). However, you need to understand, that it is not like mass-Media can get preoccupied with every little issue going on. I mean, seriously, if barbarian raiders ever came to allow a bit of breathing room to the sedentary communities they preyed upon, it is not because they came to love those sedentary folks. It may be funny to joke about it; but, let us get real, love was not what dissuaded barbarian raiders from looting everything they could from their sedentary preys. Regardless, we should not take verbatim journalists dramatism; or are you sure you really love your siblings as much as you always swear to mom you do, or it is more like that you came to learn, that she loves to hear you saying so?

If lack of love is not the problem, neither can we hope to find causes for our societies' current sorry state of affairs, in some sort of disagreement over the pernicious effects of inequality. Rather, nobody seems to keep any doubt that our societies would function much better, if there would be a reasonably balanced distribution of wealth and resources; but, oddily enough, - as much as our societies' brightest bulbs have been racking their brains - everybody appears to be at a lost on where all that obscene inequality comes from. Now, the concern over inequality, as morally appalling as it certainly is, has also important  (if not outright critical) practical ramifications. Indeed, if you are all powerful,  you will be less inclined to feel any appreciation for your social lessers. I mean, I do not know about you in particular, but aristocrats and rich people alike never exhibited any esteem for the unwashed masses. Why waste energies cajoling, when you can just bark your orders around? Why go through the pain of a serpentine route, if you can just take the straight line? It is certainly reasonable to question, that (as I contend) love evolved to encourage the social animal to keep the long-term in mind and seek cooperation with other individuals; but it nevertheless serves the purpose. If the barbarian raiders had a limitless pool of sedentary communities at their disposal, they would never have had to care for their preys' subsistance, in order to ensure their own long-term likelihoods. Long story short, the way things work, this kind of obscene inequality will lead us to dig our own grave, by killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Let us accept it, regardless of the degree to which human beings are capable of logical thinking and making rational choices on the basis of such virtue, fact of the matter is, if the System works for you, you are going to love it, and if the System does not work for you, if you get the rough end of the stick, you are going to hate it. Just the same, come Hell or high water, nobody will ever recognize his or her triumph was out of luck or privilege. Or, have you ever met any wealthy person, who ever admitted his fortune had not been the result of his or her talent and hard work; but in actuality was only the natural consequence of the privileged opportunities he or she received? Now, if the most knowledgeable among us say our so-called Democracy is the best invention after peanut butter, who are you to doubt it?

OK, OK... our so-called "Democracy is not perfect; but, at least, it is better than nothing"... Yet, if he does not love you, the argument according to which it is better than nothing that, at least, he keeps telling you he loves you, is not just idiotic but repugnantly disingenuous. If he does not love you, you want to know the truth, before you go to bed with him and become pregnant from a man, who tomorrow will be depredating on a different woman. Indeed, any merchant could tell you that the best selling strategy requires to display special affection for the prospect buyer. Or, would you ever dare to reveal to mom, that you do not exactly love your siblings as much as you always say?

Here again, the mistake is to frame the argument in moral terms. What fool would want to poop where he or she eats? Are you sure it had not backfired , if - as a little child - you had revealed to your mother, that you do not quite love your siblings as much as you always swore? Fact of the matter is the barbarian raiders' families (elders, women, children...) had never accepted, even less understood, that their leaders would have kept any concern for the sedentary folks' livelihoods and have done anything less than sacking the hell out of them, as if there were no tomorrow. The way things work, a leader has always been valued for the amount of bacon he brought home, not for his vision for the future. If any challenger had more to offer, who had time to listen to the old loser's words of wisdom? For all what matters to the people, if the goose that lays the golden eggs dies, what is the problem with starting leeching off the next door's goose that lays the golden eggs. Indeed, as any North American white settler could tell you and any Native American would confirm, those peoples who prey upon their environment as if there were no tomorrow are more competitive than those who appreciate and care for it. As all empires have shown, from Alexander the Great, the Roman Empire or the Carolingian Empire, as long as the scheme expands from one door to the next there should not be any concern that the sun will not rise tomorrow and the sky is the only limit.

Yes, if we frame the argument in moral terms, we will always view as good those who say to care for us and act in our favor, whereas the bad guys will always be those who do not. We will so repeat making the same mistake - the abuse and exploitation of the weak by the strong - for - so long the ideology serves our interests - we will support it as if there were no tomorrow.

What fool would want to bite the hand that feeds him or her? What purpose would it serve? What foolish journalist would dare to criticize our fake-democratic system and be immediately ostracized? If the most knowledgeable among us say our so-called Democracy is the best invention after peanut butter, who are you to argue against it? Given all the scams and crazy conspiracies out there, it is not like we can just trust anybody. 

Yes, fake-Democracy's ideology has taken on a life of its own. Far more so than a parasitic pathogen, if anybody tries to shake it off, it will fight tooth and nail for its survival. We all, big and small, have been indoctrinated by the most educated and knowledgeable among us, into the belief that, with the American and French Revolutions, our revolutionary founding fathers set us all free; but in reality it was only the Ideology which broke out free. As the King's head was chopped off, the Ideology's bond to the King was severed and it went from being the Royal Ideology to be haled as the System Ideology. As a matter of fact, from then on out humans became slaves to the Ideology, much like any regular cell to the organism it belongs to: Indeed, no matter how evil, ruthless and harmful the System may be, no single human being will ever have enough power to change it. Any importan decision requires the agreement of many different people, and - even if one or more persons may quixotically try to come up with some strange radical and groundbreaking idea - the ideology dominating the overwhelming majority will always prevail, get imposed and re-establish order. Who would want to risk losing the perks of the current status quo? Certainly not the (very much indoctrinated) majority. Certainly not those who benefit the most from the current status quo. Certainly not those with any sway to make any significant change. We all know it, whoever does not abide and follow the values, principles and orders of fake-Democracy will be replaced and thrown into irrelevance and oblivion. The fight against the evil System is in fact so hopeless that the Ideology's clergy have even been able to convince us, that Don Quixote's fight against the evil giants is as futile and foolish as tilting at wind mills.     

 complex dynamical systems as humankind either find a stable state where to converge or spiral off into chaos and disappear. As any parasitic pathogen could tell you, leeching off your host as if there were no tomorrow, works only until the pool of hosts is exhausted. As any historian could tell you, all "civilized" societies, as fantastic as they appeared at their climax, failed soon after they stopped expanding. Arguably, an exception to this rule is the emperors' Roman Empire ; but - tellingly enough - there was a strong central authority, the rest of the aristocrats and magnates alike had very little power, nobody was allowed to possess more wealth than the emperor, and pretty much anybody with a strong military record could aspire to become emperor regardless of his social origin. If the DNA of our society - our way of thinking - is that those gifted with a privileged brain bulb should be free to amass wealth to their insatiable heart's content; - not unlike any other pyramidal scheme - the system is only going to work so long there are still unfortunate souls left from where to siphon off wealth. If we have not yet arrived at a 1984-like society (and it would be really hard to argue we are not), the way things work, the dynamics of our current fake-democratic system most absolutely inexorably lead us to such a horrific and terrifying world. Now, unfit as such a society is, 1984 is the last stage before we disappear. Hopefully, there will be somebody left to learn the lessons and take it from there. To make a long story short, as much as we will never know if the social arrangements reviewed by Graeber and Wengrow resulted from conscious choices, we can say with certainty that, if fake-Democracy was one such conscious choice, it most definitely was a really stupid and suicidal one.

Now, as bad as these news are, the good news are that human beings are certainly capable of logical thinking and making rational, conscious choices on the basis of such virtue. It is just that as humanity's knowledge has increased to such staggering levels, it is becoming less and less practical to rack our brains. Are you really sure you can improve the wheel? You do not think it would be smarter to just learn what other people has already figured out? If only everybody would have access to the most relevant and sensitive knowledge... Yes! that is the key of the whole problem: a few have appropriated the most relevant and sensitive knowledge. Indeed, there is no sensible reason why we should abide to any such odious ideology; it just takes us to come to terms and become aware of its evil foundations and cause. Indeed, if there is one really good thing about fake-Democracy is that it only takes the people to skip Election Day and the whole monster falls apart. In fact, given how much we all despise the entire political class and how well aware we are of their hypocritical ways and self-serving motives, the truly perplexing incongruity is why do we all, one election after another, so religiously go to the polls to vote for them. Obviously, - not unlike little naive children follow their parents' guidance - we have come to blindly believe in anything we are told by the most educated and knowledgeable among us. It then stands to reason that, if only journalists were democratically elected - rather than selected by the wealthiest among us -; - since it is only foolish to poop where one eats - journalists would serve the interests of the people - rather than the upper class', as it is currently the case -. Therefore, once the upper class loses its monopoly on the most privileged expert knowledge and information, it follows it will automatically likewise lose the control of the rest of the population and so the highway to the 1984 horror will be utterly shattered. 

         

Indeed, not unlike the cells in an animal organism follow the signals triggered by the neurons in the brain, we follow the expert guidance of the educated elite.