Parallels between the algorithms of natural evolution and the human intellect
In my book "Is Intelligence an Algorithm?" I claim that nature and the intellect part of the human mind follow a similar algorithm, when they are trying to achieve complexity. In this article I'd like to make that comparison more explicit to show one-to-one correspondences for each of the steps.
Descent into Chaos
Step one of the "Intelligence Algorithm" is not really a step. It's just the provision of the start material which is to undergo transformation to become more complex. In nature this can for instance be an atom, a molecule, an organism. In the Mind it is simply the status quo. The knowledge and understanding we have at the start moment. This is the thesis in dialectics.
Step two is encountering the stimulus or problem arising from the environment. This is the dialectic antithesis. For an organism in nature this can be an imminent threat from the environment, such as fire, the presence of a predator or the scarcity of resources. For the Mind when dealing with (re)cognition this can be encountering an object it has not identified yet, but it can also be more complex such as a problem we wish to solve.
Step three is the first real step in which a reaction takes place. Given the problem nature is going to explore alternative scenarios. It is going to spawn a plethora of alternative possibilities. Under stress organisms evolve: mutations occur more frequently when stress is applied. In the genomic system this can be in the form of point mutations in which a nucleotide is inserted, deleted or substituted for an alternative nucleotide. But also the copying of complete genes occurs as well as the deletion of complete genes. On top of these genomic mutations, there are also epigenetic changes that can occur under influence from the environment: DNA methylation, histone methylation, phosphorylation or other posttranslational modifications. These changes can not only make a gene more or less vulnerable to mutations, but they can also result in the gene being silenced leading to under expression of the encoded protein or on the contrary activated leading to overexpression of the encoded protein. All these changes can result in phenotypically changed organisms.
And when an organism faces a threat it evaluates a plurality of possible exit strategies.
Likewise the Intellect when facing an unidentified object or problem will screen its mental library for a plethora of possible candidates or possible heuristics (educated guess strategies to solve problems).
The screening step in facts creates a multiplicity of relations between the stimulus and the starting material/state.
But not all of these possible alternatives are alternatives that can remedy the problem. Many are not viable at all or are viable to such a minute extent, that they soon disappear. If there is a plurality of viable potential strategies, nature or the mind must filter out the most promising ones. This step is called pruning: The less viable branches are cut off.
In step 4 from these viable branches a winner is selected, which has the most promising characteristics and which becomes the new thesis. Whereas step three was a descent into chaos and hell, in which nature tries to do whatever, in step four triumphantly order re-emerges. A new promising candidate has been found which is capable of escaping the threat or lack of resources.
Similarly the Mind selects the concepts corresponding to those neurons which fire and wire together according to the "Matthew" principle: To those who have it shall be given, from those who have not it shall be taken away. Thus an object is recognised, when it has been filtered out to have most characteristics in common with a known object.
A heuristic is selected when forward chaining (looking for a solution starting from the problem) and backward chaining (looking for a solution reasoning back from the desired result) meet; perhaps literally there where the corresponding neurons meet, the concerted firing induces the wiring together.
Emergence of higher order
On a heterarchical level competition between contenders may be the new stimulus to induce a new cycle of this algorithm. A fifth step.
For instance different types of organisms may be competing for the same resources. A mental problem may lead to a plurality of inconclusive contending strategies, none of which solves the total problem.
The evolutionary mechanisms of nature and the mind here also correspond in that differences are distinguished between the contending strategies and also differences between the problem and the status quo. This can result in an effort to mimic the contender or the characteristics of the problem or to an exchange of features between contenders or between a contender and the problem. Such mimicking or exchanging is the process of distinction probing in action. This is the sixth step of the algorithm I described. The Mind performs a similar activity of distinguishing, weighing and exchanging by means of its analytical intellect. But here also a synthesis is forged. Whereas the spawning of pluralities leads to a degeneration of one into many, here by acquisition of skills of others unions of features are achieved: many tending to become one. Aggregative inventive recombination. Similarly the mind will try to use solutions known for similar problems from a different setting into the setting of the present problem. It thereby creates not only novelty but achieves complexity. Features are added, deleted or substituted to give rise to a new solution which solves the problem. Alike in nature and in Mind.
Thus in a seventh step a new complex thesis is arrived at, which can be a genuine inclusive emergence showing synergistic features as we often see in symbiotic solutions or rather an exclusive type of niching, whereby the problem is solved by limiting to a still viable subset of the desired result. Again thus the winners are selected. Preferably in generating aggregative symbiotic complexity which has more versatility and variegation to cope with future unexpected problems. And this aggregative process is in the opposite direction from the descent into chaos. It is the resurfacing of the solution as a new higher order of more unified complexity. It shows that both nature and mind search for the many to become one again, at a higher meta-system level.
Conclusion
A comparison has been provided between the algorithmic steps nature and the intellect follow to cope with challenges from the environment. Problematic stimuli result in the spawning of a plethora of possible solutions, which undergo an extensive screening and pruning process from which winners are selected. Ideally resulting in aggregated higher forms of complexity with a more promising viability.
By Antonin Tuynman a.k.a. 