Chapter V - Draft

 Chapter 5b The scientific method and how the brain learns how things work and stuff comes about.

1 - The scientific method is nothing but a truly powerful all-purpose learning method and, as such, contrary to 

Contrary to general belief, not only is the scientific method's application domain not limited to the natural sciences, but it is actually especially well-suited for impossibly complex, inscrutable questions, such as civilization, state, power, love, intelligence or consciousness.

There is the general misconception, according to which the scientific method's application domain is limited to the natural sciences and it cannot be employed for the investigation of complex abstract concepts such as civilization, state, power, love, intelligence, consciousness or human nature.

Yet, nothing could be further from the truth, since the scientific method is nothing but a general, all-purpose recipe for learning the causes and reasons of stuff. Absolutely, so long we seek to understand what are the causes and reasons for certain stuff - that is, how a given thing works or how certain stuff comes about -, the scientific method can be applied to the investigation of any recognizable thing. As discussed in previous sections, the scientific method proceeds in repeated cycles, in each of which we put through the test a set of reasons (data-generating model) we are at that time hypothesizing to cause the stuff we observe. So long we can go on repeating for as long as necessary trying out all sorts of plausible reasons, - for only the exhaustive exploration of all possible combinations - it only makes sense we will eventually get really close to the true causes for the data. However, we need to be able to perceive some sort of output, so that we can assess wether the model's hypotheses pass the test or not. Now, the requirement of some sort of perceivable output does not imply the scientific method is restricted to tangible things; but we can likewise apply it to abstract concepts. So long the concept's definition is precise enough to specify what sort of perceivable output the thing in question should generate in any given situation, we will be able to test whether the hypothesized data-generating model produces such same output. In other words, so long we are able to test if the thing behaves as the model predicts, it is possible to apply the scientific method.

An obvious example of this is the weather. Clearly, the weather is not a tangible thing, but we are still able to recognize whether it is raining, what is the air pressure, what is the atmospheric temperature, what is the wind speed, etc. Thus, we can begin hypothesizing how all these variables relate one to another, run the model and test whether the model's predictions coincide with the actual weather output. or not. The key element of the scientific method is therefore the model: namely, since we have a model of the investigated thing, we can play with it as much as necessary, trying all possible ways in which the model's variables may relate one to another, until we find the one that yields accurate predictions.   

Now, the weather does have a physical expression in real life; but it is much less intuitive to see how it may be possible to investigate an abstract concept such as 'democracy', which not only does not have a physical expression, but does not even exist in reality, since it is only an ideal. Definitely, a clique of powerful individuals at the top of the society only came up with the term 'democracy', as a form of ideal world, in order to lure and spellbind the rest of the people into a specific political movement, and keep them most absolutely enchanted holding the short end of the stick forever after. However, not only does the concept of democracy only exist in our minds, but - as it is defined - does not have a feasible manifestation in the real world. Indeed, the strict definition of 'democracy' is: "the government by the people"; however, it is rather obvious that the sheer expression is in itself quite a bit of an oxymoron, since the term 'government' already implies there is a subgroup of individuals, who exert authority over the rest of the population. Moreover, it is equally obvious that it is not very wise nor judicious to engage and burden the entire population in the specific and specialized function of government. Yet, if we can all make sense of the concept of democracy, it is because - theoretical debates aside - it is not at all involved to visualize how such an ideal political system should feel like. Yes, to the extent that the term 'democracy' was coined to ignite the people's wildest dreams, we should not get entangled in the strict definition. Rather, it is for everybody easy to understand, that the whole idea behind the concept of 'democracy' is not that the government is run by the people, but that the government looks after the interests of the entire population, in that everybody enjoys a similar, fair and balanced opportunity to succeed. Crucially, this picture of the ideal political system is the concept's "perceivable output" we can use as target as we follow the scientific method to explore our way into the ideal world of democracy.

the whole catch of the Democracy hoax is that the most enlighten in the society, those that from then on out will forever hold the good end of the stick, wired up in our brains the revealed truth of what constitutes the magical formula, which - without a doubt - should bring about the Garden of Eden of democracy: Of course!, if we hold presidential and legislative elections every few years, observe separation of powers and allow total freedom to media outlets' magnates to establish public opinion; we can be certain that the government will look after the interests of the entire population, in that everybody will enjoy a similar, fair and balanced opportunity to succeed. There is no way around it, if that is the revealed truth and sentence of the most enlighten minds in the society, who are you, little worm on Earth, to maintain any doubt about it? As they so very much like to say: "Our so-called Democracy is not perfect, but it is better than nothing". Yet, for only the courts' systematic bias in favor of those privileged litigants wealthy enough to afford hiring a private attorney, no self-reasoning mind could reasonably conclude everybody receives the same treatment. In fact, the unbalance of opportunities is wired up in the System, the moment the very Constitution acknowledges the supreme importance of the right to legal counsel. If we then consider further that those born to wealthy families enjoy far better opportunities, not just in the crooks system, but also in education, health or basically any other aspect of life, there is simply no way that, any self-reasoning mind could reasonably agree that, by any stretch of the imagination we are anywhere close to the Promised Land of democracy. Yet, God forbid, nothing precludes us from trying other formulas to achieve something resembling similar, fair and balanced opportunities: Perhaps the fox is guarding the henhouse, when journalists are in the payroll of big magnates?; perhaps, in the same way that the people elect their political leaders, they should likewise elect their public opinion leaders?; perhaps separation of powers does not work wonders?; perhaps some mechanism must be put in place to prevent the crooks from using their discretion to systematically fake having been fooled by the private attorney, and instead point out that whatever loophole the private attorney has come up with still contravenes the spirit of the Law?...

After all, ours is only the latest - yet, probably the mostt dishonest - of several other takes on the idea of democracy. The first documented attempt - probably the most honest and best of all - was Ancient Athens' Direct Democracy; but it was declared defunct and forever abandoned, after Athens' ultimate defeat in the Peloponnesian War. Another very-well known example is the Roman Republic's Representative Democracy, which yielded spectacular results during its initial pre-imperial era - while inequality stayed within reasonable levels -; but gradually went out of order, as Rome became the master of the Mediterranean, until it reached its horrific apocalipsis after a gory century of constant civil wars and bloodbaths. It then speaks to the founding fathers' dishonesty, when they could not think of anything better than to put as through a new run of the grisly nightmare, by designing our Representative Democracy to the image of the failed Roman Republic's. To make a long story short, given the precedents and the current state of affairs, there is no reasonable reason why we could not apply the scientific method to start raising hypotheses on what factors and ingredients would yield a more satisfying output.

After all, if the scientific method is little more than a formal specification of the good, old trial-and-error investigation scheme, we should be able to employ it to explore just about anything. We should not allow ourselves to be impressed by the pesimism of those who hold the good end of the stick; it certainly is of no surprise that they insist the scientific method has no good application in the social sciences. Evidently, it is only foolish to expect the witch will ever want to advise the frog on how the spell can be broken. After all, the spell may not be perfect; but it is better than nothing, isn't it?

* There are no intelligent ideas, but intelligent behaviors.

Most descriptions of the scientific method stress the importance of a careful observation of the data: namely, as the story goes, if we observe carefully, an intelligent individual should be able to fathom out the reasons for what he or she perceives. There is such blind faith in the existence of an intelligent agent inside our minds, that it all boils down to whether the light bulb is going to go off or not. Yet, the key to a successful scientific investigation does not reside on the genius to come up with the most insightful set of hypotheses, but in the thorough exploration of all sort of possible reasons, until a satisfactory answer is found. Back to our initial discussion on description-centered- vs. action-oriented-perception models, what matters is not whether we build the richest and most insightful description possible of what we observe, but whether we take the action which attains our goals. Absolutely, what good is your intelligence for, if you cannot even accomplish your objectives?

Nowadays historians adamantly reject the notion of inevitability. The underlying rationale is that there is always the possibility, as tiny and insignificant as this may be, that something may happen and change the most probable course of events. For instance, in "The Dawn Of Everything", Graeber and Wengrow argue it is hopeless to predict History, and make the case of Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian Empire: there were so many things that could have happened - Alexander himself, for example, was in several occasions very close to dying -, that nobody could have predicted with absolute certainty, that the Macedonians were going to take over the Persian Empire. This argument takes us back to our previous discussion on the brain's non-logical, probabilistic modeling of the world: just because there may be some exceptions to a rule, it would not be very smart to discard the rule altogether. Indeed, for instance, for a child it will always be a good idea to listen to its parents' advice, even though there is always the possibility that the parents may actually be incorrect. Fact of the matter is there are usually consequences for things. Thus, it is only intelligent to investigate what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for stuff, and understand that once certain conditions have been sufficiently met, such consequences are rather inevitable.

In fact, It only makes sense to think that one of the reasons why humans started to analyze their history was to figure out how things work (i.e. what were the causes, reasons and intervening factors for what happened). For instance,for a warrior it is only smart to analyze how his previous battles have gone; particularly if the battle was lost. Only a fool would not want to find out why the outcome was not as desired, and instead would go on repeating the same mistakes over and over again. Indeed, it is best to make some guesses of what were the most likely causes for the failure and what is that we can do next time to increase the probability of success. Basically, based on our knowledge of how the thing works, we elaborate a plan, whereby we predict to get better results next time. Hopefully, we will learn something from our failures and improve our knowledge of what does not work and what is likely to work better. We should not forget that the whole point of intelligence (whatever that means) is to be able to come up with the sort of intelligent behaviors that will achieve our goals. Yet, if we are totally incapable of predicting what is going to happen, we will not be able to choose our actions intelligently. In other words, there is no intelligent behavior if we cannot make predictions, or what good is your intelligence for, if you have no clue of what is going to work and what is not going to work?

     The reason why so much emphasis is made on the scientific method, is because it represents the very essence of learning and intelligent behavior; in that we learn how things work as we investigate why stuff happened. Yes, if that is exactly how learning comes about and intelligent behavior is generated in the brain, it should not come to anybody's surprise that the scientific method follows the exact same scheme. Indeed, both, brain and scientific method, seek to build a model, which replicates the investigated thing's behavior: As we try to replicate how things work, we, little by little, find out why stuff comes about, and, as we little by little, discover what are the causes, reasons and all sort of factors leading to stuff, we come to learn how things work and stuff comes about. Now, crucially, if our model is able to replicate the investigated thing's behavior, then we can easily draw predictions on what sort of stuff the thing will produce in any given situation, and therefore we will be able to use the thing to our benefit or, at least, prepare for what is going to happen. In other words, the most "intelligent" person - or, at least, the biggest expert - on a given thing is whoever has formed himself or herself the most accurate model of such thing.

Scholars in the humanities rack their brains over what could be the definition which most accurately describes the data; but, as discussed earlier, all what there is behind such effort is an attempt to identify common patterns of behavior. When it comes to physical things, we group together under a certain name those stimuli, which exhibit the same behaviors (that is, seem to function alike), even though they may appear differently; whereas we distinguish with different names those stimuli, which exhibit distinct behaviors, even though they may appear alike. In other words, regardless of their sensorial appearance, if two things function identically, we will understand they are actually the same thing and represent the same concept; whereas, if they function differently, regardless of how similar they may be, we will conclude they are distinct things and represent distinct concepts. The crucial point is that the brain's genius strategy to investigate how the world works, consists in building a model for each of the countless functionally distinct things in this world, which it is able to distinguish, identify and demarcate. It then goes without saying that each of these individual models represent each of the concepts we form in our minds of the individual functionally distinct things in this world.  

   

On the other hand, when it comes to non-physical things, the definition simply aims to describe the observed phenomenon. The hope here is that eventually we will manage to identify certain patterns of behavior, which we may then be able to trace back to its source. For instance: why does it rain?, why does the wind blow?, why do humans fall in love?, why do humans die?, why do wars break out?, why do humans come up with ideas?, why do we feel inside our mind some voice constantly chewing over stuff?, etc.. 

 

In any case, whether it is brought about by a physical thing or not, we want to learn how stuff comes about. Thus, after all, it does not really seem things are exactly the objects of our brain's interest, but patterns of behavior - or events in general - appear to be of greater relevance. Clearly, what our brain really cares about is predicting what kind of stuff will take place. Once more, we want to know how stuff comes about, so that we can steer to our benefit how stuff is going to unfold or, at least, anticipate and prepare for what is going to happen. As it turns out, it is then of lesser relevance whether such stuff is brought about by a physical thing or by something else. Obviously, if it is caused by a physical thing, our investigation is greatly simplified, since there is no wondering how to go about it: we just have to figure out how the thing works, so that whenever we recognize it, we will know how to use it to our benefit or, at least, anticipate what is about to happen. Hence, as a matter of fact, a detailed description is here very useful, in order to accurately recognize the thing; while a good definition will complement the detailed description with a clear explanation of how the thing works. In other words, a good definition of a physical thing will be made up of a detailed description, by which to recognize the thing, as well as a clear explanation of how it works.

Now, if our five senses are not able to identify any physical origin for such stuff, it is only natural to start imagining there must be something out there responsible for bringing it about. It is so easier to see why human beings started coming up with myths to explain to themselves how stuff comes about: if it rains or the wind blows, it is because some deity is showing off its superhuman power; if humans fall in love, it is clearly because Cupid is playing tricks on our hearts; if humans die, it is obviously because the gods decided it is time to recall us; if wars break up, it is because a mischievous god is stirring discord; if humans come up with ideas, it is obviously because our brain's light bulb goes off; if we feel some voice inside our mind, what else could it be, but our spirit speaking to itself? Yes, we think ancient humans were so ridiculously dumb, but then we worship and hold dear the most fundamental of their myths; it is just that we call them abstract concepts like, for instance, weather, love, death, war, intelligence, consciousness, justice or democracy. Indeed, as it turns out, narratives, symbolic figures and gods proved to be useful artifacts to embody and explain complex, invisible ideas.   

 

Now, as much as we may want to think that abstract concepts such as the weather, love, death, war, intelligence, consciousness, justice or democracy are brought about by a myth, a detailed description of such complex, invisible ideas is not going to be of much use. As mentioned before, when it came to a physical thing, a detailed description of the thing allows us to recognize it when we find it "out there", so that we know how to use it to our benefit or, at least, anticipate what is about to happen. However, when it comes to an abstract concept, since we cannot perceive it with our five senses, the question obviously is not how is that we can recognize it, but how it behaves or, at least, how is it meant to work.

 

Having said that, as discussed earlier, a detailed description may help to demarcate the phenomenon we seek to understand or define. In the imaginary example above, where the phenomenon is brought about by supernatural forces, it would be helpful to identify which exact myths are responsible for what we observe; so that we can better focus our efforts on the investigation of the underpinnings of those precise myths (that is, build a model of each of those mythical things or sources). More realistically, if we want to find out how battles work (i.e. how to win battles), it will be useful to realize there are distinguishable types of battles (namely, sea battles, open field battles, urban battles, etc.) and - to the extent that each of them work completely differently - we need to investigate them separately (that is, build a separate model for each of those distinct things). On the other hand, if - for example - we want to understand how intelligent behavior comes about, it is no good to start distinguishing among spatial intelligence, logical and mathematical intelligence, musical intelligence, linguistic intelligence, emotional intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, interpersonal intelligence, intrapersonal intelligence..., unless there are good reasons to think, that all those types of intelligence are brought about by distinct sources or myths. 

The example of intelligence shows that we come up with abstract concepts, but generally have very little clue or insight of how they work, we only "sens" something. Clearly, when it comes to non-physical things, rather than to as how the thing works, we will achieve better results if we investigate, how it is that the stuff we sense comes about. For instance, rather than asking what is intelligence or how does intelligence work, - to the extent that we do not sense anything such as "intelligence" (whatever that means), but something more like "intelligent behavior" - we will get much better insight if we investigate how does intelligent behavior come about or, better yet, what leads to intelligent behavior? Similarly, rather than what is consciousness, we should consider what leads to our sense of consciousness (or, simply, what leads to conscious thought or our train of thoughts); rather than what is human nature, we will get better insight if we investigate what leads to good, selfless behavior and what leads to bad, selfish behavior; finally, rather than what is a French, a German, a Hispanic, an Indian, a Chinese, etc., we should focus our investigation on what leads to behaving like a French, a German, a Hispanic, an Indian, a Chinese, etc.. Yes, what we should really care about are the causes, reasons and intervening factors leading to whatever stuff is relevant to us. If we understand what are the ingredients and intervening factors for something, we basically know everything there is to it. Indeed, we will know how to bring it about or predict how is it going to come about. After all, the causes for something represent nothing but its sheer essence. For instance, if we understand what leads a human being to behaving like a French, we will know if French people are inherently different and represent an essentially distinct nature from other folks, or it is just that they go through different experiences. Now, if the former turns out to be the case, we will come to realize that it would have only been a waste of resources to build a specific model to understand French people; but a global model of human nature is a far more efficient and effective strategy. 

        

Now, crucially, if we have ever wanted to discover the reasons for stuff, that is exactly what the scientific method is all about. Indeed, the scientific method is nothing but a formidably versatile and powerful investigation scheme, a set of steps and rules, that we can follow to find out what ingredients, factors and rules lead to certain stuff. It can be applied not only to research how things work or certain stuff comes about, but - fascinatingly enough - also to investigate how to attain some desirable stuff. As discussed earlier, the key element of this general investigation method is the model. The basic, genius idea is to build some sort of physical or virtual artifact (the model), which seeks to replicate the data or simply generate some desired stuff. Building such a model is certainly easier said than done; but, assuming we manage to put together an artifact, which faithfully replicates the observed data or simply generates the sought-after stuff, the question of how the investigated thing works or how such stuff comes about, at last, receives a straightforward answer: namely, if the model's output is the same as the investigated phenomenon's output, then the investigated phenomenon's underpinnings - for all intends and purposes - should be the same as the model's underpinnings. In other words, the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the investigated phenomenon's output - for all intends and purposes - should be the same as the sources employed by the model to produce such same output. Consequently, as stated before, as we try to replicate how things work, or simply experiment how to bring certain stuff about, we, little by little, find out why stuff comes about, and, as we little by little, discover what are the causes, reasons and all sort of intervening factors leading to stuff, we come to learn how things work, stuff comes about or, plain simply, how to attain some desired stuff.

It is thus easy to see why the model is such a formidably powerful device: Since the model works like the investigated phenomenon, if we want to predict what will be the phenomenon's behavior (or, simply, what kind of stuff is going to come about), not unlike weather models are employed to forecast the weather, all what we need to do is run the model from the same starting point, and observe what output it produces. In other words, it really does not matter if the model's underpinnings are actually not exactly the same as the investigated phenomenon's; so long the model replicates the phenomenon's behavior, we will be able to draw predictions and therefore use it to our benefit or, at least, anticipate and prepare for what is about to happen. Fact of the matter is, since it is impossible to demonstrate that something will always be correct, we will never be able to achieve absolute certainty on what are the exact causes, reasons and intervening factors for the investigated phenomenon's behavior. Consequently, so long the model's predictions are correct, - for all intends and purposes - the model's underpinnings are the same as the phenomenon's underpinnings. This is obviously not meant to contradict, however, that the day that one of the model's predictions turns out to be incorrect, it will be only intelligent to learn from the mistake by adjusting the model accordingly.     

Thus, considering what kind of powerful tool the model represents, it likewise becomes evident why it is far less unfathomable to investigate physical things. Since there is something material, that we can observe through the senses, it is possible to play and experiment with the thing. Now, we will not be able to mess around with the thing's inner-workings - which is the main benefit of a model -; but, at least, we can investigate how the thing behaves in different scenarios. Moreover, should we feel the need of building a model, our observations of the thing's behaviors will make this task far less impenetrable and daunting than, for example, a model of love, power or conscious thought.     

Medical research is an excellent example of this kind of mode of investigation: namely, as we explore the causes for disease and the corresponding therapies of cure, we, little by little, learn how the human body works. For obvious reasons medical doctors cannot just go about freely messing around with internal organs and body tissues, but careful observation already provides very helpful insights. As a matter of fact, many medical breakthroughs nowadays do not require any doctor to inspect any human body, but result of a cold statistical analysis. For instance, if heavy tobacco smokers exhibited alarming high rates of lung cancer, it did not take the brightest light bulb in the room to guess that tobacco smoking may be a cause or, at least, a significant factor in lung cancer. Now, as much as this may feel a very strong hypothesis, before we accept it, the scientific method instructs us to put it to the test. If we had a model of the human body, we would just put those artificial bodies to smoke like chimineys. If the hypothesis is correct, we prdict a significant number of them will develop lung cancer. However, such a model of the human body is not available and it would be only abhorrent to run an experiment of that sort on real human beings; thus instead we just select another sample of people and observe if they likewise confirm the prediction: namely, do we find in the new greater sample the same high correlation between heavy smoking and lung cancer?

 Another rather trickier example is the question of human nature. Again, instead of asking what is human nature, we will get better insights, if we consider what leads to good behavior and what leads to bad behavior. Now, needless to say, human nature is the kind of impossibly complex concept that it is generally believed to be beyond the application domain of the scientific method; to begin with, we would first have to reach an agreement on what constitutes good behavior and what constitutes bad behavior. Still, at least within the context of children parenting, it does not seem that unrealistic to conduct a scientific investigation on what parenting practices are more successful at raising respectful and considered individuals. Definitely, nowadays the most learned in the society insist children should at all times be wrapped in love, hugs and kisses in order to flourish. According to these modern parenting theories, when children feel loved, happy and safe, their brains are more open to absorbing new information, solving problems and developing critical thinking skills. However, an alternative, more traditional view on this question would argue that a child is not likely to learn how to behave, if mom hugs it after each and every mischief; whereas the message will be self-explanatory, if what follows is a gentle pat on the butt. Now, assuming both of these hypotheses are reasonable and worth considering, it is only sensible to follow the scientific method and put them to a test. As a matter of fact, for this kind of experiment, not only do we not need to build a model, but - to the extent that it would be really awkward to parent an artificial child - a model would probably be more of an impediment than an aid. Rather, it would suffice to form two groups of families: one made up with enthusiasts of the modern parenting theories and the other with more old-school type of parents. It would certainly take quite some years to get the results, but eventually we would know which of the two hypotheses is likely to yield better outcomes. Crucially, at that point, there would not be any space left for respectable opinions, but the data would have spoken, and Nature's survival-of-the-fittest will be the only authority qualified to interpret the veredict and deliver a final sentence..

It may not always be necessary to build a model, bbut that does not change the fact that a model is nevertheless always a fantastically helpful tool in the investigation of any question, in that it empower us to try and test all sort of possible answers to any given question: why did we lose the battle?, what leads to intelligent behavior?, is it going to rain tomorrow?, what leads to lung cancer?, is a true democracy ever possible if public opinion is controlled by the most wealthy in the society?, are children more likely to learn how to be a good person if they are kept wrapped in love, hugs and kisses, or does it work better if they are corrected whenever they misbehave? 

It is true that many scientific investigators do not put any effort in building a model of the investigated system. However this is not because it would not be useful, but because for most of these systems, not only it is extremely complicated to put together one such model, but often it is also unnecessary. This is particularly generally the case in the investigation of living things. As in the tobacco-smoking and children-parenting examples above, if we want to find out what strategies or practices are responsible for certain consequences, it is just easier to analyze what strategies and practices are followed by the various instances of the living thing we find in the real world, and what are the outcomes yielded by each of them. As discussed earlier, the same reasoning can be identically applied in the social sciences: if, for instance, we want to find out what policies, strategies and practices lead to certain consequences, it is only intelligent to look in the past for examples of such policies, strategies and practices, and analyze what were the outcomes. True, we will never be able to determine with absolute certainty, say, what were the exact causes for the defeat in a certain battle. Since the specific situation will never exactly repeat itself, we will never be able to reliably test, what would have really happened, if certain other choices had been made. However, there is no good reason why we could not explore the repercussions of some other more structural concepts. For instance, under what circumstances and in what shape is a strong central authority likely to be a positive or negative factor in the good government of a society? Separation of powers and checks and balances may be beneficial to prevent a single ruler from abusing and taking advantage of his unchecked power; however, in the context of a democratically elected authority, is it such a good idea to limit the authority of the government of the people?

 

Yes, regardless of whether a modle is actually built or not, the basic scheme is always the same: time and time again we try out and test all sort of possible answers to a given question, until eventually we reach a satisfactory resolution. But, what still needs to be clarified is what exactly represents an answer to the investigated question, as well as how will we be able to test them. In this sense, since we have come to realize, we will gain better insights if we craft our questions to interrogate how things work or how certain stuff comes about, our hypothesized answers will generally represent the causes and reasons for the stuff we observe or seek to produce. Thus, we basically want to find out what leads to certain stuff. Finally, particularly if a model is going to be built, still left to be resolved is how is that we can test our hypotheses; but, as crucial as it is, since such logistical issue is specific to the system under investigation, we better do not get diverted into that rabbit hole.

Thus, assuming we have some way to test our hypotheses, we are at last ready to start exploring what causes, reasons and intervening factors lead to the stuff we want to understand. For this sake, it should be useful to consider Graeber and Wengrow's example of - as they phrase it - the invention of bread. In their much acclaimed book "The Dawn Of Everything", these eminent scholars suggest such a momentous discovery should have required a truly gifted intellect, and - since nowadays it looks really good on any public figure to exhibit strong adherence to the feminist ideology - they even take the license to speculate that, in all likelihood, it was a woman, some prehistoric Marge Simpson, who achieved such a fantastic breakthrough. Who knows, considering how smart she is said to be, perhaps it was Lisa Simpson herself! Clearly, the fox is always looking for something beautiful to say to the crow.

It is certainly hard to believe that our nice, lofty bread came fully formed; but some brain power must have been involved before humans started using yeast to make bread. However, it really seems way too far-fetched to think that, as smart as prehistoric Lisa Simpson may have been, some genius could have ever devise that, by adding yeast to the flour-and-water mixture, some air bubbles would form, thus causing the dough to rise. Rather, it certainly seems more realistic a scenario, where one day the bread somehow came out nice and lofty. The key question then became what caused, what was the reason why this time the end result was so fabulous: was it because there was more flour or more water in the mixture? perhaps, this time the oven temperature was higher or lower? Could it have been that the dough was left for a longer or shorter time in the oven?... Given that our nice and lofty bread had been so wonderful, it was only reasonable that all efforts were made to replicate the fantastic outcome, trying out, one by one, all sort of hypotheses, until it was finally discovered that, as it turned out, stupid Homer Simpson had left the wet flour to mold in the sun! Eureka!! Who could have guessed it? We did not need any intelligent-agent light bulb to go off after all. We had all been so excited when Graeber and Wengrow broke to the world the thrilling news that, in all likelihood, it had been a woman who invented bread; but, as it turns out, brainless Homer Simpson could have accomplish the exact same feat, by simply methodically putting, one by one, all sort of hypotheses to the test. Admittedly, fake-feminists could here still reasonably point out that Homer Simpson may have forgotten the wet flour molding in the sun; but it was obviously Marge's feat to reason out such had been the reason, why the bread had come out so fantastic. Yet, it remains that reasoning - the most exalted of human intellectual abilities - does not require any magic, but can be produced by simply applying a scheme along the lines of the scientific method.

Yes, there is no need of any genius to identify what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for certain stuff. We just have to start with a set of hypotheses - as rudimentary, unpromising and unconvincing these may be - and take it from there. That is exactly why the scientific method is especially well suited for impossibly complex, inscrutable questions. There is no need to stress out ourselves, nobody should feel daunted by the overbearing complexity of the problem. After all, it is not realistic to think, that whichever model one proposes will be the definite answer to the conundrum. Indeed, since it is impossible to prove a scientific theory absolutely correct and, furthermore, in all likelihood, sooner or later any theory will ultimately be proven wrong anyway; nobody can expect you to get your model free from any flaw. Even if we do not have the slightest clue of what may be the underpinnings of the investigated phenomenon, we should not allow anyone nor anything to stop us from raising hypotheses on which are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the stuff we seek to understand. Everybody should feel encouraged to propose something. You just try to explain as much as you can, as best as you think of. If you cannot get it perfect, do not worry; we will take it from there and extend it further. Every attempt is a step forward. We will eventually get to the end of it. 

Yes, interestingly enough, not only is the scientific method a formidably effective and powerful tool to investigate problems of extreme complexity, but it is particularly well suited to be applied in parallel by a massively parallel-and-distributed architecture of billions of competing and cooperating processing units such as humankind or the brain. Indeed, each unit will raise a number of hypotheses and follow the corresponding strategy. For only the competition between units, - not unlike in a war - the strategy pursued by each competing neuron will become exposed to everyone else in the theatre of war. Furthermore, the competition itself will serve as the ultimate objective test of the fitness of all the contenders' strategies. Obviously, whichever strategy comes out on top from today's battle will be, at least until the next encounter, the model for the rest to follow.

Yes, what is crucial is that we test our hypotheses. As stated before, we have to hypothesize a data-generating model: namely, what are the causes, reasons and intervening factors for the data we observe? If our data-generating model fails to accurately produce the sought-after stuff, we will need to accept there is something wrong about it and, at the very least, we need to adjust it. Definitely, it is impossible to prove that a proposition will always be correct or that something does not exist; but it is possible to prove that something does not work as a theory had predicted. In this way, the scientific method empower us to little by little improve our knowledge of the world around us. However, perhaps it may be more accurate to say that the scientific method actually is about reducing our uncertainty about the world; since, one step at a time, discards possible explanations for the data we observe. Yes, the whole point of a scientific theory is to hypothesize a number of causes or reasons (data-generating model) for the observed data. Thus, to the extent that the scientific method constitutes an objective method to conclusively refute a scientific theory, as we - one after another - eliminate theories (and so the corresponding hypothesized reasons), the search space of possible reasons for the data gets more and more constrained. If we may never be 100% certain of what caused a given phenomenon, at least - thanks to the scientific method - we can be certain of what did not cause it. Thus, our understanding of said phenomenon is progressively improved as the space of possible reasons gets ever smaller and we can so focus on those explanations which are more promising (i.e. those whose predictions have so far been confirmed). Given that all what brainless Homer Simpson needed to do to stumble upon bread was to methodically put all sort of hypotheses to the test, it seems safe to say, that if our model of the brain's main hypothesis is that our neurons follow the same kind of scheme to form itself a model of the world and find out the causes and reasons for all we experience; then we will come to see that our model of the brain replicates word by word the behavior exhibited by the actual brain. Clearly, as brainless Homer Simpson's stumbling upon bread shows, if the scientific method empowered humanity to find out how things work and stuff comes about, we have all reasons to expect that the neurons in our brain will only need to follow the same kind of scheme to accomplish this same feat.

  

To make a long story short, there is no need of any magical intelligent decision-making agent, but a learning scheme along the lines of the scientific method is all what we need to explain our miraculous ability to find out the causes, reasons and intervening factors of the phenomena we observe: First hypothesize some causes and reasons for the data (i.e. hypothesize a data-generating model), then build a model implementing said hypotheses (i.e. implement a replica of the data-generating model) and put them to the test. If the predictions are not confirmed, correct the model by redefining the hypothesised underlying reasons and run the test once again until a satisfactory match is achieved.

At last, it is time to apply the scientific method's criterion to establish the credibility of a scientific theory: namely, as stated before, if our model of the brain behaves as the actual brain, then we can only conclude that, for all intends and purposes, the underpinnings hypothesized in our model are the same as the underpinnings of the actual brain. Indeed, since it is impossible to demonstrate that something will always be correct and therefore we will never be able to achieve absolute certainty on how exactly the brain works; so long our model of the brain accurately replicates the behavior of the actual brain, we can only conclude that - for all intends and purposes - our model's underpinnings should be the same as the actual brain's underpinnings. Evidently, it would otherwise be too much of a coincidence that our model works exactly as the actual brain.

Yes, you will be justified to think, that in the great majority of the cases the bell is not immediately followed by the delivery of food; but generally it is necessarry to go through an entire intricate process or sequence of actions. True, but that is why we evolved love and language, and, therefore, the need, desire and ability to share our findings with others. Indeed, language is the code with which we represent the sequence of events leading to a specific phenomenonn, as well as the channel whereby we share our findings with other individuals. Will the bread dough rise if the wet flour is first let to mold a little? Was that the reason why the bread came out so fantastic last time? Well, put the idea to the test and if the hypothesis is confirmed, share the recipe with your loved ones, so that the knowledge can spread like wildfire. Unless, of course, we want to make some business out of it, in which case we obviously will keep it for ourselves. Either way, with language the capability of the brain's model of the world is no longer limited to one-step associations, but it gets extended to replicate those phenomena which stretch along a whole sequence of events.   

Still, you will be justified to think that this world is way too complex, just plain chaotic and the number of combinations of all possible reasons for the things in this world is basically infinite. Hence, it is not realistic to hope that we will ever be able to figure out everything, by merely eliminating explanations one by one. True, but consider that there are gazillions of neurons in the brain, each investigating the world on its own, and sharing its findings with all others. Furthermore, there are gazillions of humans in this planet, each investigating the world on his or her own, and sharing his or her findings with all others. Finally, we have all the time in this world; we have literally gazillions of years. Besides, nobody is saying that we will ever figure out everything; at least not me. All what I am saying is that there is a method, whereby we may be able to systematically find out stuff, without the need to resort on the assumption of the existence of a magical intelligent agent thing. That is the scientific method> you do not limit yourself to screaming out loud that something exist, but you explain how the thing works, so that the others can prove you wrong. So long they do not, you remain alive. Clearly, your theory is good enough so long it keeps you alive. Then, following Nature's survival-of-the-fittest, the fitter the idea, the more competitive and greater following. It is all an objective method through and through. 

  

This is not to say that it does not help to carefully analyze the data we seek to understand or it is not worth to put much effort in looking for strong hypotheses. As a matter of fact, precisely because these tasks are a crucial part of any investigation, our brain allocates most of its resources to resolve them. However, since this happens unconsciously, we have come to believe it is by magic. Have you ever wondered why you feel premonitions? What is our intuition about? While it is difficult to give a definite answer, it is well known that, in the background (unconsciously), the brain is continuously polling associations and making projections into the future. At any given time, based on these associations, different clusters of neurons will raise all sort of hypotheses on what is going to happen next. The confidence in each of these predictions is given by these neural clusters' firing rates. Victory in the ensuing competition among predictions means capturing our mind's attention. This is the moment we will become conscious of the idea. If our instinct is particularly confident of the victorious hypothesis, we will feel our brain's light bulb went off and will say we just had an aha moment. 

Hence, there are strong reasons to think, that the associations among basic stimuli learned by our instinct constitute the basic level of our brain's model of the world. Thus, for instance, when the Pavlovian Dog hears the bell, it automatically starts preparing for the food it is going to receive; because - for all intends and purposes - the bell becomes the reason for the food. In other words, the bell is no longer just a bell-shaped, ringing metal thing; but, in addition, once the association has been established, it is the cause for the food as well. The next step will be then to find out what leads to the bell to ring. Thus, little by little, the brain's model of the world is extended and the comcepts it works with get more and more complex.

    It therefore all indicates the key does not reside in a genius light bulb, but in extended practice. As discussed in chapter II and III, the more we play with something, the richer and more informative the set of features we extract to describe the thing, and the more reliable the associations we establish. For instance, it would have been much easier for prehistoric Homer Simpson to figure out what had been the reason why the bread came out so wonderful, if he had been baking bread many times before. Indeed, if that had been the case, as stupid as modern fake-feminist thinkers insist he must have been, he would not have just randomly come up and tried out all sort of hypotheses. Even his much limited brain must have been able to notice that, this time that he had left the wet flour forgotten to mold in the sun, it just did not feel the same as all the previous times. Probably, it would not have smelled quite right, and the color must have been kind of odd. Consequently, when it came to find likely reasons why this time the outcome had been so extraordinary, it only made sense to first try with those circumstances that had been conspicuously different. The memory of the odd color and smell must have been the first thought, that would have popped up in his mind. Basically, the unconscious associations of our instinct are responsible for raising the hypotheses that our "reason" should test.

In general terms, our instinct's associations bear information on how to resolve basic tasks or simply indicate how to go from Point X=(X1, X2, ... , Xn) to Point Y=(Y1, Y2, ... , Yn). Clearly, if one manages to learn a comprehensive catalogue of such associations, it becomes much easier to reliably navigate within a problem's domain. For instance, if you have a lot of practice cooking stuff, you will develop a profound knowledge of all sort of ingredients, techniques, tricks and basic foods, that you can combine with one another to prepare complex meals. Needless to say, ingredients, techniques, tricks and basic foods you may have learned from a given recipe, can then be used to try to come up with some new meal. Even for Homer Simpson, it must have been natural to think that, if he preferred his food to be nice and lofty, he could try to leave the wet flour to mold in the sun, not just to make bread, but for cakes, pies and just about anything. Now, if it had been Lisa Simpson, we could fantasize that she would have been able to fathom out, that some fungi had been the actual reason, why the bread had risen. However, given that in all likelihood it rather was Homer, who stumbled upon the marvelous discovery, we can only reasonably assume, that all what his limited average Joe's intellect may have managed to think is that the Sun God needed to bless the wet flour, in order for it to rise. Lisa would probably have been able to form herself the concept, that the yeast is the raising agent; but for Homer it could only have been, that it required divine intervention. Therefore, it is likely that he would have thought the idea would work as well for any kind of food. At some point, he may have even implored the Gods to bring back to life a rock-hard piece of meat. However, since the test would obviously have failed, he would have had to adjust his mental model, until - after much trial and error - he would have ended up settling down on a (language coded) recipe of good, lofty bread, according to which the wet flour needs to be left for a while in the sun, so that it would obtain the Gods' blessing, necessary for it to rise. Importantly, now that a clear language description existed for the procedure, anyone could follow it to produce wonderful bread whenever desired. In a way, the recipe represents a model of how lofty bread comes about. Moreover, from the experience, prehistoric Homer Simpson should have got a more precise concept of how flour works: namely, flour turned out to be this special kind of ingredient, that - for some reason (probably the Gods' blessing) - whenever wet flour was "left for a while" in the sun, the "dough" would "rise" and the final product would turn out much "softer" and enjoyable. 

However, it is also entirely plausible there was never any such aha moment, but very often learning instead proceeds in a gradual fashion. Indeed, quite likely, there was not such an extraordinary occasion, where stupid Homer had left the wet flour forgotten in the sun, and the bread had, as a result, come out so fantastic. Perhaps there was just a little delay before the dough was introduced in the oven, and it therefore did not rise much. The end result was certainly better than your average brick, but nothing that would raise any eyebrows. Still, prehistoric Homer may have got a feeling, that it was not a good idea to rush the dough into the oven; or, perhaps, it was just his natural indolence and slowness, that predisposed him to do everything sluggishly. Either way, with time he may have developed some intuition that the more time the dough was allowed to sit, the better the bread would turn out. Hence, in this alternative scenario, it was a matter of course - rather than a conscious decision -, what led Homer to master the art of good, lofty bread. In this sense, it certainly must have been a true paradox, that precisely Marge's far more competent and diligent personality is what would have prevented her from achieving the same wonderful product. Nevertheless, it is not realistic to think that prehistoric Homer would have ever been conscious of the key relevance of the lapse of time the dough needed to sit, before it would be introduced in the oven. Quite the opposite, he most certainly just followed his instinct; after all, if it had worked wonders until then, it was only natural to continue doing it in the same way. Hence, if he ever wrote down his recipe, we can only expect he omitted any mention of said crucial step. If at all, he would have just made a note indicating the need to obtain the Gods' blessing. However, since that obviously was not the actual reason why the dough would rise, when Marge eventually tried to followed Homer's (language coded) recipe to replicate his excellent results, she must have found there was something wrong in Homer's reasoning. Methodical as she was, she would definitely have asked for the Gods' blessing; but, diligent as she was, (much unlike Homer) she would not have taken half day to sort out that step. Consequently, even if she had followed Homer's recipe to the letter, her bread would still have come out stiff as a brick. There was indeed something wrong with Homer's bread-making model: he had formed himself the concept, that the Gods needed to bless the wet flour, in order for it to rise; but that was evidently not the actual reason. It so becomes clear why the scientific method's step of testing hypotheses is of such critical importance.  If the model's predictions do not get confirmed and the model fails to replicate the data, regardless of how intelligent the expert may claim to be and how much faith we have in him, the model will have to be adjusted. If the Gods' blessing is not what leads the dough to rise, we will have to try some other reason, until we eventually find out that it is necessary to allow enough time for the raising agent to grow.

The example above illustrates that the brain's approach to intelligent behavior is indeed to learn a model of the world: namely, how do things work and how does stuff come about? As discussed before, if such a model is available, we will be able to predict what is going to happen and prepare ourselves accordingly. Clearly, if one can tell the future, it does not take the brightest light bulb in the room to make "intelligent" choices, but any brain can do it. From this "bread invention" example, we can also deduce that two basic coding schemes are employed to implement such a model. At a low level, direct associations between basic patterns are represented by means of our instinct's associations; whereas, at a higher level, complex data structures and sequences of events are coded in natural language. We generally see language as a method of communication; but, as a matter of fact, it is first and foremost a knowledge coding scheme. Indeed, our sense of consciousness is the best indication, that language is the coding scheme employed by the brain to represent complex knowledge structures. In a way, natural language is to the brain, what a high-level programming language such as C++ or Java is to a computer. If we are able to memorize complex sentences, - as any object-oriented computer programmer could explain - it is just a matter of sheer efficiency to codify with high-level tokens (such as words) the complex data structures and rules we have learned to describe how things work and to anticipate how stuff comes about.

Now, in the same way that a comprehensive catalogue of direct associations between basic patterns is of much help to come up with strong hypotheses, it goes without saying, that a solid knowledge of a given field is likewise fundamental to further extend and detail our brain's model of such subject. Clearly, if a principle applies to a certain thing, it is only sensible to hypothesize related stuff is going to work in a likewise fashion. For instance, any careful observation of Nature reveals that Nature's survival-of-the-fittest rule forces living things to follow optimal designs. Evidently, those that do not abide by the rule will not survive the competition and therefore disappear. This is the principle, whereby we previously hypothesized, why humans are generally more dexterous with one limb than with the contralateral's. Another interesting example, which should shed light on the present discussion, is the question of why coconuts are hollow: Indeed, if we consider the aforementioned principle, it would stand to reason to hypothesize, that the reason why coconuts are hollow is because then they could float and they would so be fitter than if they were solid. Clearly, if they are hollow, they can 'swim' from one island to another and therefore expand into new worlds. Now, since coconuts have no brain, are not "self-conscious" living "things", are not able of any kind of reasoning and, therefore, cannot make choices, it is a bit imaginative and illusory to speak of the reason why coconuts turned to be one way or another. Certainly, it is not like anybody will ever be able to get a coconut to produce an explanation clarifying the exact reason why it became hollow: either because it needed to be able to float in order to survive, it was fashionable at the time, it was required by law, or any other reason. Yet, since we have come to assume that coconuts have no agency, we cannot accept any hypothesis requiring any such agency. Moreover, given that all other coconuts - which did not become hollow - were driven into extinction, we can safely say that, for all intends and purposes, coconuts are hollow because that is how they are fittest. In other words, if we were to build a model, where everything we observe today has its current form, because at some point it reckoned such was the fittest and most optimal choice; then all of such model's predictions (i.e., whichever is fittest prevails and whichever is not is driven into extinction) will always be confirmed correct.

Now, obviously, coconuts are here just a simple example and we can only expect the evolution of every living thing in Nature must have followed the exact same dynamics. Consequently, Nature's -survival of the fittest' offers a very promising hypothesis to explain most of the big questions, which have intrigued humans all since we can see. For instance, to the extent that human societies are a living thing and are therefore likewise subject to Nature's 'survival of the fittest', we can only expect that this law likewise constituted a major factor (if not the fundamental driving force altogether) why the State emerged. Indeed, if we consider that the State functions as the brain of the society, then it is only natural to hypothesize, that , in the same way that those animal species which evolved a brain were fitter and slowly drove to extinction those which did not, those human societies where a state rose were fitter than those others, where nothing ever developed to coordinate and direct them. Admittedly, there is a difference between State Formation and our hollow coconut example above: namely, whereas we accredit agency to human beings, we do not recognize such to coconuts. We therefore cannot just rule out all those hypotheses , according to which humans for some reason chose to build a state. However, if we consider the historical record, it would be impossible to identify a single person, who ever even entertained the idea of building anything like a state, let alone chose to do so. All what everybody was concerned with was how to get more powerful; either by means of cajoling and sway or by means of force and coercion. In fact, if nobody had any concept of anything like a state, it is difficult to see how anybody could have ever thought of pursuing such an unknown objective. In other words, if we were to build a model, according to which some human being at some point somehow decided to start working on building a state, we are bound to a long search before we will find the flimsiest evidence confirming (if only tangentially) the model's predictions. Indeed, all the evidence suggests that State Formation was an evolutionary organic process. In other words, if we were to build a model, according to which the most powerful individuals in the community came up with ideas to build what would later be known as state institutions, as a means to futher increase and consolidate their power, we will find that the historical data will nothing but confirm the model's predictions.

In fact, here it is worth reflecting a little deeper on this last observation and consider for a moment what may lead humans to be constantly seeking greater power. Again, one promising hypothesis to entertain is whether the existence of such power-hungry individuals may make the species fitter. Given the undeniable risks associated with the fight for power, it is certainly reasonable to question that those individuals invested in such pursuit will necessarily enjoy a fruitful life, and can therefore be considered fitter than average. However, at the species level, it is possible to suggest one strong argument in support of this hypothesis: namely, any careful analysis of Nature shows, that cooperation and competition in perfect balance leads to miraculously optimal patterns. If we accept this to be the case, it is easy to see how power-hungry individuals may contribute to the species overall fitness; since - on one hand - the merciless fight for power implies intense competition among those involved; while - on the other hand - the sheer exercise of power leads to cooperation, since everybody works now together towards the objective determined by whoever proved to be the most talented and skilled leader in the preceeding competition. 

Fascinatingly, if we consider that war represents competition and the State represents cooperation, this last argument co-aligns with Charles Tilly's truly insightful "War made the State and the State made war", and feeds back into our previous hypothesis on the causes for the origin of the State. Namely, no one ever took any conscious decision of starting to work towards anything like a State, aimed at providing servecis for the benefit of everybody in the community. Rather, the State emerged as an organic process, that progressed as humans competed against each other for dominance, and - little by little - came to realize they would be more likely to succeed, if they established alliances with other folks, with whom they were ready to share some spoils of the ultimate victory.

Consequently, we can elaborate our hypothesis further, by saying that Nature's 'survival of the fittest' led humans to evolve a drive to dominate other humans, and the emergence of the State was just the natural conclusion of such drive. After all, it is not difficult to see how a living being may be more likely to flourish, if it manages to get other living beings to work to its benefit. This is so much so considering that - as the sheer concept of the State shows - the most effective form of domination is not achieved by force or coercion, but by cajoling and persuasion.

Example scientific model of human nature: humans compete one against another for material goods; but need to feel loved in order to be happy.

Indeed, a Hobbean model of human nature, whereby humans can only think of abusing other humans, simply does not accurately replicate the data we observe. For just one thing, it is hard to see how we could have made it this far, if our only concern were how to dominate and exploit other folks. As much as, undeniably, we are capable of the most gruesome and wicked acts and behaviors, it is not less true that we also love and care for, if not all, at least those most special folks around us. Now, if we were to take a cynical perspective, one could argue that most of our expressions of affection are not sincere, as when we routinely greet our neighbors, by mechanically asking how he or she is doing. Yet, even if that would be the case, it still serves the purpose. Yes, we can spend the rest of our lives arguing what all those expressions of care are really about; but - for instance - the life experience of a person born with a severe disability leaves little doubt that humans love to help other humans. Regardless of where it comes from, we seem to act as if we felt an (instinctive) need of love. Consequently, if we want to achieve a good match to the behaviors we observe; - in addition to an insatiable (selfish) hunger for material goods - some sort of relentless pursuit of love must be another driving force in our model of human nature.

    So, there we have it again: a balance between competition and cooperation. Indeed, our hunger for power leads us to compete, whereas our need of love induces us to seek cooperation. Now, if these are our model's two main factors, the next crucial issue the model will have to address is when do we compete and when do we seek cooperation? In this sense, it should be interesting to consider that, whereas competition and domination represent an immediate-return (short-term) tactic, cooperation leans more to a delayed-return (long-term) strategy. Clearly, when we cooperate with other people, it usually takes quite some effort on our part to win the other person's trust; but - as long as we exercise good judgement selecting whom to cooperate with - we can be sure we will get back multiple folds all what we gave in advance. It then stands to reason to hypothesize that we will feel less inclined to follow the circuitous route of cooperation, if we hold a strong position and can afford to go straight and simply get what we want. If that is the case, we should expect that - as it can be observed - those in the lower levels of the society, despite their meager resources, are actually generally more generous and are more willing to share than those living in plenty at the top of the society.  

Now, in order to form ourselves an accurate picture of what leads the brain to sometimes seek cooperation and some other times go instead for outright domination, it is very important to consider that, whereas we are all perfectly conscious and aware of our need of basic and not-so-basic material goods, we are never quite taught of our need of love and affection and are therefore not really conscious of it. Indeed, whereas our need of material goods is a prominent feature of our conscious knowledge (to the extent that the logic of our reasonings constantly circle around our insatiable pursuit of money), we only feel a desire to be loved, and will likely get depressed if we are not, but will not even be quite aware that the actual reason for our sadness is the absence of love. Clearly, we are constantly looking for some scheme to make as much money as possible; but who does ever think up a plan to satisfy his or her need of love and affection? As a matter of fact, many people may altogether disagree with the present model's hypothesis, according to which we will never be really happy, if we do not feel loved. After all, given that all since Civilization our conscious knowledge has always been defined by those most knowledgeable individuals of the society's educated elite, it should not come up to anybody's surprise that the need of love has never been part of the knowledge taught to the children. Competition at the topmost levels of the society has always been without quarters and any expression of love has always been perceived as a sign of weakness: again, if one sought cooperation, it was because he did not feel strong enough to get what he wanted by sheer use of force. Consequently, if upper-class people have always been the least familiar with what it means to be loved, it would only be foolish to hope they would be able to illuminate and uplift the rest in such subject.

Fortuitously, however, at least all since Civilization, humans have been taught, that everybody is always going to expect us to strive to achieve moral excellence. Moreover, mom has always been very clear that she would not be happy with us, if we do not behave righteously. Thus, since the need of mom's love is a rather self-explanatory concept for any child, when all is said and done, we do get instructed (at least in a way) to seek cooperation. Indeed, if we are not taught that we need to feel loved in order to be happy, at least it is deeply drilled in our conscious knowledge the expectation that we conduct ourselves morally. In fact, we do observe that humans need to feel good about themselves: basically, humans need to feel that - as mom used to put it - we are "good persons", since from very early in our lives we established the association that we will be loved, if we behave righteously..       

However, it is important to note that moral behaviors to not lead to the best cooperation. Definitely, if the society's moral code has always been defined by the educated elite, and we are ready to agree, that those at the top are not the most enlighten when it comes to the mechanics of love, no one should feel surprised that Our moral code does not constitute the best manual on how to win the love of other people. To make matters worse, as humanity's conscious (language-coded) knowledge has grown to such startling levels, it is just logical, if not outright intelligent, to take advantage of all that wealth of information discovered and gathered throughout generations by countless folks. Lamentably, however, we are then induced to perceive - and end up finding - it irrational to follow our instinct even for those subjects on which there is no good, trustworthy (language-coded) knowledge, like (for instance) how to win the love of other human beings.

Fact of the matter is good cooperation comes about when the parties feel there is a sincere appreciation for one another: basically, if you care for me, I care for you; today it is for you, tomorrow it is for me. But only a fool will trust that you feel a genuine appreciation for her or him, just because you give a firm handshake and ask "how are you doing?" whenever you come across, or you say "I love you very much", again and again, everytime you talk to him or her. Unfortunately, here not even mom's advice is entirely reliable: namely, how many times did she say your siblings love you and you can always count on them and, yet, how often is that really the case? Fact of the matter is our instinct is way more experienced, masterly and infallible at determining the sincerety of someone's expressions of affection, than any social norm we are taught. After all, throughout thousands of millions of years our instinct has learned to identify cues to discern someone's true feelings: the look in his eyes, the tone of her voice, the smile on his face, etc.. 

Without a doubt, our brain's preoccupation in discerning the sincerity of other folks' expressions of love, affection and appreciation is very well justified, since this is the best indication of the extent to which cooperation with those folks is likely to yield us any good benefit. Clearly, if they love us, then we can trust them. It is therefore only natural that we will follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or -all in all - more powerful individuals, who we feel care for us. It just makes total sense: if they love you, they will want the best for you, and, if they are more knowledgeable, it is only smart to take the wise advice. That is why children follow their parents' guidance and the populace listens with great attention - if not all the way fall for - all what those caring and very well informed people of the Press, as a whole, has to say: like, for instance, we live in a democracy; our so-called 'Democracy is not really perfect, but is better than nothing; limiting the power of the (democratically elected) 'Government By The People is fundamental in a true democracy; forcing the billionaires to pay taxes is not the magical solution to altogether make the ever-growing deficit disappear, so, why bother?; we are all equal to the law, despite the fact that those upper-class individuals wealthy enough to afford paying a private attorney enjoy a decisive advantage in any legal dispute adjudicated by the crooks system; etc., etc..    

Now, if we assumed that whoever manages to get other folks to do as he or she says, will be more likely to prevail in Nature's competition for survival; then we can forsee that humans will be likely to go great lengths to be perceived as extremely knowledgeable, as well as to express great care and appreciation for other folks. Instinctively, not necessarily consciously, humans have come to associate that if we manage to establish that we are very knowledgeable and care a whole lot for our "buddy" or "fellow citizen:; the poor fool will naturally follow our advice and do as we say. It is then also easy to see, why we find it so irritating whenever someone starts lecturing or giving us unsolicited advice.

We cannot even control it: In the same way that we do not get to make a conscious choice of whom to fall in love with, if we feel someone is more knowledgeable than us, there is not much we can do about it, but, instinctively, we will feel compelled to follow the wise advice, since only a self-assured jerk would refuse to listen to some good words of wisdom. The problem is that there is no good, reliable recipe to accurately determine when someone is more knowledgeable than ourselves (and so is an 'authority' from whom we may be able to receive good advice). In fact, throughout Evolution and personal experience our instinct has become better suited than our reason to make such complex assessments. Indeed, how can we reliably reason out a solution to a conundrum of this kind? If we do not know much on a given subject, how are we going to discern if what the other person is saying is accurate or he is actually full of it? But, on the other hand, as convinced as one may be of certain facts, it is often the case that folks are misguided into erroneous beliefs. Instead, our instinct evolved to gain valuable insight from a series of cues bearing information on the level of success achieved by a given person. For instance, what kind of prestige goods does that person possess?, How happy does he seem?, How self-confident does he appear?, etc.. Clearly, if you exhibit amazing prestige goods and or look very happy, it will be difficult to argue that you have not found a good recipe to success. Conversely, you may boast about your fantastic knowledge as much as you want; but all that wisdom does not seem to be of any good to you if you are homeless or look totally miserable. Moreover, how do you expect anybody to trust how much you know, if you are the first who does not believe in yourself? 

Seen from outside one cannot help to think that folks are stupid, but they are only following their instinct. For instance, here in the West we wonder why Northkorean folks bow their heads before their Supreme Leader; but we do not want to understand that from very early in their childhood, all since they can remember, their public-opinion leaders and all those others at the upper levels of the social hierarchy, who benefit from the Northkorean social system, have constantly told them, that their nation is the greatest and most wonderful in the world and they need the regime to protect them from evil. As a matter of fact, does this not sound familiar? Indeed, here in the West we think we are so much smarter, but at some point we would also want to ask ourselves - if the billionaires here are not required to pay taxes, we are not all equal to the Law (but those individuals wealthy enough to afford paying a private attorney enjoy a decisive advantage in any legal dispute), and only those born to wealthy families enjoy all the opportunities - how come everybody here is so most absolutely convinced we live in a democracy? OK, as our public-opinion leaders enjoy to say: "it is not perfect, but at least it is better than nothing". Yet, is a little lie better than no lie at all?, is a fake better than no fake at all? 

The relevance of our instinct to follow the guidance of those most knowledgeable and caring individuals simply cannot be overstated. For one thing, it constitutes the sheer basis of Civilization. Indeed, Civilization can be best characterized by the mindset whereby human beings behave contrary to what would be their natural instinct; because their social betters, those most educated and knowledgeable individuals at the top of the social hierarchy have managed to convince them, 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.

From a moral perspective it is rather appalling that an elite of families come to dominate, abuse and exploit all others in the society; but - as it can be inferred from Tilly's "the State made war and war made the State" - only those groups, where the individual members settle on an effective form of cooperation, will prevail in Nature's competition for survival. Definitely, the fittest groups are those in which there is a good balance between competition and cooperation. Now, since Nature's 'survival of the fittest' already forces every living thing to compete, the key to success resides in achieving a sophisticated social organization, with a good degree of cooperation among its members. Needless to say, however, this is easier said than done, because - let's get real - our need of love may induce us to seek cooperation with those folks, with whom we keep a direct, eye-to-eye contact; but - let us be honest - we will not love or appreciate people we have never met before, or do you really expect me to believe, that you do feel genuinely sad, whenever you learn about the passing of any of your fellow countrymen? 

All since the rise of Civilization, we have been told the fairy tale, according to which at some point human beings' light bulb went off and came to realize, that we will be stronger), if we would cooperate and work together; but such an idealistic view is not consistent with the data we observe. Clearly, how is anybody going to cooperate with some other person, who you have never met before and who - as far as you can tell - all you have in common with is that you both are going after the same goods and resources, and, therefore, is nothing but a potential competitor and rival? As communities grew ever larger and eye-to-eye contact among fellow citizens slowly disappeared, the only way to keep them together - if at all - was by the use of force and coercion. However, brute force domination is not a viable long-term solution to keep a large population under control. Clearly, no one - absolutely no one - appreciates someone else telling him or her what to do. As a matter of fact, the strategy that turned out to work best was to cajole the populace into submission. However, this could not take place until the society had become stratified; since humans follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or - all in all - more powerful individuals, who we feel care for us, but no one would recognize someone else to be more knowledgeable (let alone more "intelligent"), unless there is a significant difference in socio-economic status. Indeed, as we all have at some point in our lives come to grips with, it is basically impossible to convince a social equal of anything. Obviously, the only notable exception to this rule are children. 

The circumstances of a child are clearly totally different. Childhood is that stage in a person's life, where we learn how to interact with the world around us. If the objective is to learn, it is only natural that a child will be eager to listen to any older person, who has far wider experience on the things in this world. In fact, we observe that children love to be with adults as much - if not even more - than to play with other children. It stands to reason to think that one main reason for it is that there is far more to learn from grown-ups. For those adults, on their part, is also a dream come true: finally someone willing to listen to his or her stories!! Soon puverty hormones will come into play and the child will no longer blindly believe grown-ups know everything best; thus, there is no time to waste. It is usually said that humans like to tell stories, but we never take a minute to consider if there may be a reason for it. Indeed, if we concluded that coconuts became hollow, because they would so be fitter; it seems reasonable to likewise hypothesize that humans feel inclined to tell stories, because they would so acquire sway over all those innocent souls willing to listen. It should then not come to anybody's surprise that other adults do not have time for the old man's tales; much unlike the children, they have been there and done that as well, and do not feel like being lectured.

Yet, there was actually something to be learned from all those narratives. As the Spanish saying goes, the Devil knows better for being old than for being smart. Definitely, it likewise stands to reason to hypothesize that humans became interested in studying their history, because learning from their past mistakes would make them wiser. However, as it turns out, there was so much more to it. Absolutely, as stories of the group's past were related from one generation to the next, the group developed a sense of family and, with that, a sense of identity. Since we had been raised listening to the same stories, - even if we had not met before - we shared the same ideas, views, beliefs and practices. Since we shared the same past, - even if we had never met before - we felt part of the same family, we were the same people. Our identity is therefore the group of people, with whom we believe to share interests and therefore feel confident it would be mutually beneficial to cooperate with; while the society's ideology is the set of ideas, views, beliefs and practices that binds us together and leads us to believe we share interests with the rest of the members of the society. Indeed, - since our ideas are always biased based on what fits our interests best - if we embrace the same ideas, it stands to reason to believe in all likelihood we pursue similar objectives and it should therefore be worth cooperating with.

It is then of no surprise that, wherever we look, we observe that those peoples, who cherished their history did get stronger; because everyone in the society, every single citizen, was led to embrace the understanding, that the good of the whole is the most effective strategy to secure one's own wellbeing. 

It is here important, however, to keep in mind that none of the above is meant to constitute proof of anything. Rather, it only represents a theoretical example of the processes followed by the brain to identify promising hypothetical causes for the data we observe. Whenever we encounter some new stuff, we immediately try to understand how it came about. In principle, it can be anything; but, it stands to reason, that the stronger the correlation to the investigated stuff, the stronger the hypothesis will be. There seems to be two main sources of hypotheses: on one hand, our mind polls our instinct's associations looking for anything related to the stuff we hope to understand. For instance, for the Pavlovian Dog, it is only natural to hypothesize, that the ringing of the bell is the cause of the food it receives. Needless to say, however, this sort of unconscious, "instinctive" process is not what we commonly associate to "reasoning". Rather, - to the extent that it is conducted consciously - we are more familiar with how we draw logical inferences to reason out hypothetical causes for the observed stuff. For example, if we have come to accept that living things evolve into the fittest designs, and we likewise trust that human beings follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or - all in all - more powerful individuals, who we feel care for us; then it is reasonable to hypothesize (as we did before), that the reason why humans enjoy exhibiting prestige goods is because looking strong and powerful confers them sway over other folks. It is probably incorrect, however, to think of these research processes as running in parallel, independently one from the other. Rather, it all seems like instinctive associations and logical inferences interact with each other, in order to identify promising hypotheses. For instance, once prehistoric Homer remembered that the wet flour had acquired an odd smell, after having been left forgotten sitting in the sun for a couple of hours; it was basically automatic to reason, it must have been the time the Sun God had given Its divine blessing necessary for the dough to rise.

Leaving aside how these hypotheses get generated, it is more crucial to consider that they are formulated in natural language; that is, natural language is the coding scheme employed to represent all these hypotheses and new theories. For instance, at first, we may have felt some intuition, that the bell signals the forthcoming delivery of food; but now it got spelled out in precise words: namely, "whenever we hear the bell ringing, food is going to be provided immediately". Initially, we may have felt some intuition, that the odd smell the dough had acquired after having been left sitting in the sun, was the main singularity of the extraordinary process, which had led to our fabulous lofty bread; but now it got spelled out in precise words, that "the dough perhaps has to be left sitting in the sun, in order for the Gods to provide Their divine blessing". In other words, these hypotheses have now reached our consciousness, so that it becomes possible to put them to a test. If, at last, we decide to go ahead and test any of them, and the result turns out to be positive, then the hypothesis in question will enter our (language-coded) conscious knowledge.

As indicated before, our brain's model of the world employs two different coding schemes to represent how things work and how stuff comes about. However, it would probably be more precise to speak of two superimposed models, each meant to code different - but complementary - aspects of information: On one hand, what we can understand as our instinct constitutes a probabilistic model, where neural patterns code the probability (intuition) of things. For instance, how strongly do we believe that the reason why the bread came out nice and lofty was that we used more water than usual?, or - quite to the contrary - how confident do we feel that the secret was, that the Sun God gave Its blessing? On the other hand, what we can conceive as our conscious knowledge, constitutes a logical model, where natural language description spell out some sort of established knowledge on what stuff is going to come about or what things do we need to do to bring stuff about. For instance, what did we conclude?: in order to produce nice, lofty bread shall we add plenty of water to the dough, or the key is actually to leave the water-and-flour mixture sitting in the sun, so that the Sun God gives Its blessing? As we can see, the natural-language coding scheme employed by our conscious knowledge has the advantage, that far more complex data structures can be represented; but - to the extent that everything is expressed in black-or-white terms - runs the risk of assuming more certainty than what may be actually justified. For instance, are we really sure that the Sun God's blessing is what leads the dough to rise? The drawback is unavoidable, though; since when all is said and done, as much as there will never be absolute certainty on the final outcome, we will have to commit ourselves to a certain, specific prediction or action: namely, is the wind going to blow from the East or from the West?, is the Pavlovian Dog going to receive food after the bell rings?, do we or do we not add more water to the dough?, do we or do we not leave the dough sitting in the sun?, etc..

 

Still, it is crucial to keep in mind, that - as these examples show - all these language-coded hypotheses and theories in our conscious knowledge - as much as they may be the result of the most conscientious, thorough and rigorous logical reasoning - may very well be completely incorrect. Clearly, it just does not matter how much trust we have in the bread inventor's genius and how fantastic her bread turns out to be, if air bubbles form inside bread dough, it is not because of any Sun God's blessing. As we observe the world around us, it is hard to escape the conclusion that there are certain universal laws and the behavior of every single thing in the universe is determined by them. Whether these laws do actually exist or not, it is only intelligent to do our best to find patterns, by means of which we may be able to predict what is going to happen. As we have seen, this is exactly our brain's objective. In fact, our conscious knowledge is nothing but a compendium of concepts and theories we have reasoned out from our observations of the world around us. Now, if our conceptual framework's theories lead us to consistently accurately predict the future and thereby achieve our goals, it is only natural to end up settling in the steadfast and unhesitating conviction that said theories must be unquestionably and inequivocably universally true. Consequently, based on this certain and infallible ideal theoretical framework, we put our reasoning skills to work to further develop and extend our knowledge of the world. If A is true and we have found that A implies B, then, certainly, B must be true as well. Yet, what if, for instance, 'a implies B' is not exactly correct? Moreover, if it so happens that B implies C, are we also going to be certain about the veracity of C? Yes, it is long time ago that we forgot, that the basis of our reasonings may actually not be that perfectly accurate after all. In fact, as the "bread invention" example exposes, if there is anything we can be certain about is that our conceptual framework is profoundly flawed.

Without a doubt, one of the most fundamental and consequential of these dubious assumptions is the existence of an intelligent decision-making agent inside our brains. For just one thing, our entire social organization is based on this claim: namely, if a few privileged people hold a higher status and enjoy far better living conditions, it is because they were born with a superior intelligent agent. On the other hand, if many other folks end up spending a significant portion of their lives homeless or incarcerated, it is because their not-so-intelligent agent is prone to bad choices. In their widely acclaimed "the Dawn Of Everything", Graeber and Wengrow reason that our conscious thought constitutes proof of the existence of such "self-conscious" agent responsible for our choices. It is certainly a sound, logical argument; but it is crucial we keep in mind, that the logic it follows is based on our very own human conceptual abstractions. The argument makes complete sense to us, because we chose to define the word 'thought' as the phenomenon brought about by the workings of an intelligent, decision-making agent. However, for someone with a different conceptual framework, the argument may not make as much sense. For instance, if prehistoric Homer's conceptual framework conceives thoughts as divine whispers, he will not recognize the argument's logic, but will believe his sense of consciousness is proof that the Gods are whispering to him.   

In order to better comprehend how our conceptual framework is corrupted and how such corruption progressively vitiates - perhaps even befouls - our understanding of the world, it should be useful to consider, how our system's toxic ideology is propagandized by those few, most knowledgeable individuals in the society, who benefit from it. Clearly, considering the grotesque inequalities and unbalance of opportunities, as well as the excruciating hardships most folks in the society have to endure - despite our formidable scientific and technological development -, it is really difficult to find any argument sustaining why we should not try to correct something about our system. Basically, other than the name they cunningly found for it, there is nothing appealing about the spawn. Definitely, all what can be done to sustain it is to adulterate the conceptual framework our mind runs under. Shockingly enough, just a clever selection of the name is enough to completely manipulate our perception of a 'thing'. Indeed, a statement such as: "our system is not perfect, but it is better than nothing" takes on dramatically different meanings, depending on whether we denominate our system a democracy or an oligarchy; namely, "our oligarchy is not perfect, but is better than nothing" does not at all bring about the same thought as "our Democracy is not perfect, but it is better than nothing".      

Now, if our belief system is not what it alleges to be, it is likewise worth considering how much further does the corruption of our conceptual framework extend. For instance, if the judges in our crooks system systematically rule in favor of those upper-class individuals wealthy enough to afford paying a private attorney, does our concept of justice make any sense at all? Moreover, do journalists in Mass-Media really seek the general good and the florescence of the society? Considering the little time our self-proclaimed idealistic, lionhearted vigilantes of "Freedom" ever spend analyzing the fitness of the actual policies implemented by the government, and the extend to which their unsparing cutthroat inquisition is instead defined by a hawk-eyed scrutiny of matters as relevant to the common good as politicians' character and adherence to the fake-Democracy religion, It stands to reason to think that journalism's purpose is rather to ensure, that the "tyrannical" Government By The People does not ever even think of doing anything to upset the System's grotesquely unbalanced and unjust status quo, that keeps it so very well fed and taken care of. In fact, what good is an average citizen's freedom of speech for, if nobody will ever hear what he or she wants to say; since the Media only gives voice to the most wealthy people and only airs the perspectives of those at the top of the social hierarchy? In fact, if it requires a whole lot of money to exercise most rights and therefore only the most wealthy can really enjoy them, would it not be more accurate to call them privileges? The list goes on forever: why do we call public opinion, what is nothing but the opinion of only the "great thinkers" of the educated elite?, is it OK to corrupt a politician if we call it lobbying?, etc., etc..

It all shows how critical it is to keep in mind, there is no knowledge that we can be absolutely certain about. As fascinated as we are with our prodigious reasoning skills, the conclusions we derive should never be seen as proven facts; but just unproven theories. Undoubtedly, theoretical reasoning is a formidable recourse to identify strong, promising hypotheses; but the data will always remain the ultimate judge of any theory's correctness. As a matter of fact, even if the theories predictions are all confirmed, we will still never be able to say with absolute certainty the theory is correct. Just because the bread dough always rises after it is left sitting in the sun, it does not prove that the Sun God's blessing is responsible of it. Just because the Pavlovian Dog always gets fed after the bell rings, it does not mean the food was brought about by the bell. Just because coconuts are confirmed to be able to swim to nearby islands, we cannot be certain this was the reason why they became hollow.

Yet, crucially, the point was never to prove the correctness of a theory; but to be able to anticipate what is going to happen, so that we can plan how to extract the biggest benefit possible from it. Absolutely, for all what matters to the Pavlovian Dog, the bell is an excellent hint on when to start salivating, in preparation for the food it is going to receive. All what prehistoric folks could reasonably care about, is that they now mastered a reliable method to produce some wonderful, lofty bread. For all what could matter to coconuts, today coconut trees grow all over the world. Undeniably, - to the extent that predictions are drawn from our knowledge - it is certainly important our knowledge is correct, but, at the end of the day, - to the extent that predictions  are what actually guide our behaviors and actions - what really matters is whether such predictions are accurate or not. Indeed, the issue is not wether or not we are incredibly knowledgeable, prodigiously intelligent, self-conscious or whatsoever; but whether or not our actions achieve our goals. In fact, as previously discussed, the power to make predictions is the whole point of a scientific model. In fact, as previously discussed, this is how intelligent behavior is brought about in the brain. Long story short, predictions are not the means to prove a theory, but - as a matter of fact, they constitute the actual end of the intellectual endeavor. 

For instance, we will never be able to be certain that human beings follow the guidance of those stronger, more knowledgeable or - all in all - more powerful individuals, who we feel care for us; but an hypothesis of that kind may prove very helpful to get a better understanding of what lies behind many human conducts. We will definitely never be able to prove whether the intuition of gaining sway over the populace is the actual reason why politicians, journalists and elite intellectuals alike are always so keen of expressing utmost care and affection for their social lessers; however, if we are aware of such possibility, we will be far less likely to fall for that kind of (possibly unconscious) machination. If, for instance, your experience is that politicians will always make sure to say how wonderful, beautiful and intelligent you are, before they ask for your vote; it is only intelligent - it is actually the whole point of consciousness, as a matter of fact - to hypothesize such conduct may be part of a much larger, widespread pattern. Thus, next time a very influential group of eminent thinkers frivolously speculate that bread was probably invented by a woman (as if they would not be very well aware that, in all likelihood, throughout time hundreds, if not thousands of times men and women all over the world came up with all sort of ways of making fantastic bread), it should not come to anybody's surprise that the real motive of such pitifully unsincere exhibition of grotesquely politically-correct views is nothing but to boost the authors' public image.

Moreover, if by any chance the outcome of our decisions prove our judgements incorrect, to the extent that we are "conscious" of the theory we had followed, we will be able to learn from the mistake and make corrections to our knowledge. For one thing, we should take note that things do not work as said theory predicted. Yes, that is the whole point of consciousness: Only if we remember and are fully aware of what hypothesis we followed and exactly what steps we took - based on the outcome of our decisions - will we have any possibility of identifying what went wrong or what was the key to the success. For example, if you improvise some meal by just instinctively, ramdomly throwing stuff into the pot, you will not be able to figure out what was the exact reason why it turned out so good or so bad. So much for prehistoric Homer Simpsons' struggles, trying to figure out the cause, what had been the reason the bread had come out so nice and lofty, if he had written down every single detail of each and every step he had followed, it would have been straightforward to identify what is that he had done differently, or what had just been special about this last time, that the outcome had been so fantastic.

In sharp contrast, considering that the whole point of intelligent behavior is the power to accomplish stuff, if a theory does not give any insight on how things work or how stuff comes about, not only will it always lack of any reasonable credibility (since there will never be any way to verify its correctness), but - as previously thoroughly discussed - it will simply be of no use at all. Yes, the recurrent best example is the assumption of the existence of an intelligent agent inside our brain, responsible for all our choices. Since no indication is provided as of how such agent operates and therefore it is not possible to draw any predictions as of how the intelligent-behavior generating process will play out; we will never be able to verify the correctness of the theory. Rather, we will just have to be faithful of the intelligent agent's genius and wish for the best. This is, however, where the entire theory blatantly gives itself away and comes altogether crushing down. Namely, if the idea is that the 'intelligent agent' thing Nature or God has blessed us with is the origin of our intelligent choices and behaviors; then any sensible, sound logic would imply that gifts and talents would be evenly distributed across the entire human population. We could certainly expect folks to be particularly talented for different things; but it would go against the theory to find, that Nature or God favors people of specific race, sex, religion, national origin, etc.. Admittedly, in the same way that physical differences across groups are often used to ground supremacist ideologies, the theory's proponents may still come up with some reason to explain, why members of certain groups are more likely to be gifted with a more powerful intelligent agent. For instance, a religious person could very well contend, God will obviously favor those folks who follow Its holy word. However, it would refute the theory to find any significant correlation between the social status of the family a person is born to, and the quality of the intelligent agent he or she is naturally gifted with. It definitely seems hard to conceive how the theory would ever be able to find a sound, credible reason, why kids born to wealthy families generally get an intellectually and morally superior intelligent agent. Indeed, if the great majority of incarcerated people are of low socio-economic origin, does it mean that low-class people are bad by nature? If the great majority of the homeless population are of low socio-economic origin, does it mean low-class people are generally born less intelligent? If all those ridiculously wealthy people, who never need to resort to any violence in order to fulfill their wishes, are so beautiful and have such a good heart, why are they so utterly insensitive and heartless to so many folks' hardships, and keep us all stuck in a fake-democratic world, where a significant portion of the population never really receives any reasonable opportunity to flourish? Oddily enough, when it comes to these kind of matters of social justice, the concerns of these beautiful uppor-class people seem to be limited to discovering a solution to glass-ceiling discrimination, whereby - as statistics show - women are less likely than men to ascend to management or other highly-pay positions. Now, since their low socio-economic origin already prevents women and men born to poor families from going up the social ladder, the noteworthiness of glass-ceiling discrimination resides in the truly exceptional fact that, when upper-class women join the job market, for once they do not find the privileges they are so much used to, but instead are in disadvantage against their male upper-class peers. As it turns out, the concern, therefore, is not for other folks' hardships; but solely for the struggles that affect oneself.

Now, the chilling insensitivity of morally exquisite upper class people, or the inexplicable grotesquely uneven distribution across social strata of talented decision-making agents, are certainly not the only contradictions of the theory of the existence of an intelligent agent making choices inside our brain; however, they are probably about the most illustrative. Yes, it does not take a prodigious intelligent- agent genius to figure things out; but it suffices if we can replicate the stuff we seek to understand. So long we stay always ready to correct our hypotheses whenever the data proves them wrong; we will always be able to make smart choices, based on what our model predicts is going to happen. The problem is that far, far more often than we realize, our intellectual leaders refuse to accept that, as intelligent as everybody believes them to be, their theories are simply wrong. For reasons that were hinted before and, at this point, should not be difficult to guess, the actual driving force is not the growth or enhancement of our knowledge, but to promote the author's intellectual and moral reputation.

We have seen this movie time and time again, and know very well how the story goes: Homer Simpson had left the wet flour forgotten, sitting in the sun and, just like that, he had stumbled upon the most awesome bread ever made. It remained, however, to figure out what had been the reason, what had been special about this last time, that the bread had come out so wonderful. Given the limitations of his Homer Simpson's brain, it is only natural that all what he managed to fathom out was that such fantastic outcome must have had something to do with the sun. Now, if all what our XXI-century intellectual leaders - those great thinkers of the educated elite tasked with the immense responsibility of guiding us all through the darkness of our ignorance - manage to think up, in order to explain the origin of intelligent behavior is the existence of some intelligent decision-making agent inside our brain; then nobody could reasonably expect prehistoric Homer Simpson would come up with any more sophisticated idea than the Sun God must have blessed the wet flour.

 

Be that as it may, fact of the matter was prehistoric Homer was so able to reproduce the extraordinary results and, therefore, everybody accepted that his theory had been scientifically proven. However, when Marge next tried to follow Homer's recipe to bake her daily bread, she could not have been more disappointed to find, that - despite having diligently asked for the Sun God's blessing - the final product came out hard as a rock. It so was not long before Homer came to argue that he had some special connection with the divine and only he knew how to perform the rituals correctly. Marge, of course, will still do the labor work, because the fake-feminist intelligent man will be sure to tell her she is very smart (to the extent that in all likelihood it was really her idea to have prehistoric Homer leave the wet flour forgotten sitting in the sun) and she can carry out any labor job as well - if not even better - as any man; but the fake-feminist intelligent man will always be on top. Absolutely, from here on out, everybody would blindly follow the intelligent man's guidance and do exactly as he says.

Still, in the short term, the society will grow stronger, since - under the guidance of the new leadership - everybody will pull in the same direction; however, in the long run the society will stagnate, since nobody will think anything new anymore. Why would the man at the top try something different, if the old methods work so handsomely well for his family? Why would anyone think something new, if the man at the top has already proven to know all what works best? Furthermore, knowing as he knows that knowledge is the key to his power, he has made sure that no one other than his offspring has access to it.

It may sound a bit overbearing, but it is just natural to follow the advice of the most knowledgeable and intelligent in the group; particularly, if - as far as we can tell - he cares for us. Admittedly, we all look first and formost after ourselves and, thus, whenever someone grows very powerful, it is only a matter of time before he or she abuses such power. However, needless to say, the story did not end with prehistoric Homer Simpson stumbling upon bread; but this was only the beginning. Absolutely, next came metallurgy, writing, horseback riding, cannons, the printer, guns, the telescope, the microscope, electricity, the steam engine, the railroad, the telephone, Radio, the automobile, penicillin, the airplane, Cinama and Television, computers, DNA, Artificial Intelligence, the Internet, etc., etc.. Undoubtedly, our knowledge has grown to stupefying proportions; to a point that we would simply not know what to do, if by any chance we were ever to lose it. Definitely, who would want to follow his or her own instinct, if for anything there is always some expert, who knows that kind of stuff best, and is ready to explain anything you may need. OK, our knowledge is not perfect; but, at least, it is better than nothing.

Yes, the problem is when those at the top, the most knowledgeable in the society, at last close an agreement among themselves. As the saying goes, when only those at the top get a seat at the table; all those who lie underneath should only expect to be on the menu. If there is only one person at the top, we can be sure that sooner rather than later he will abuse his power; however, it is even worse if a system is on top. We always like to blame it on individual people; but human beings come and go, whereas the System stays forever. Once we have acquired some knowledge, it is not an option to unlearn it; especially if - as far as we know, as they say - it has been "scientifically proven". We call Justice a system where the crooks always rule in favor of those who know the Law best. We call Democracy a system where the political power are expected to do, what the most knowledgeable say is best. The richest families are not required to pay taxes, because the most knowledgeable sustain, it is best if they can employ their fortunes to create more wealth for the nation. As intelligent and insightful as they are, the most eminent scholars are here then quite a bit at a lost on what may be the causes of the obscene inequalities we observe in today's fake-democratic societies; but the best hypothesis they have so far been able to fathom out is that, in all likelihood, it all started 5000 years ago, with the degradation of women's working conditions in the temple factories of Ancient Sumer. Absolutely, if that is what the experts sentence, who am I - little worm at the bottom of the social ladder - to opine otherwise? There is no doubt about it, throughout History the Fox has learned well what makes the Crow tick and how to use his fake-feminist, fake-democratic silver tongue to push the right buttons. Yes, our conceptual framework becomes the operating system running our minds, and we would never want to have it replaced for any other one, because the most knowledgeable insist our system is the best ever conceived. Of course, how could anybody expect the most wealthy to think otherwise, if the System works so handsomely well for them?

Historians adamantly reject that anything of the past was inevitable. Rather, humans make choices and, if we had acted in some other way, things would have turned out differently. Yet, who in his right mind would do anything against what he genuinely believes is going to work best? Yes, to the extent that our predictions are drawn from our knowledge, our choices are decidedly and decisively determined by our knowledge. As a matter of fact, if there is anything historians do accept has been proven inevitable, this is the fall of all empires.

=====

Chapter 5C:

When, in the middle of the XX century, research in Artificial Intelligence started in earnest, given the daunting difficulty of the endeavor, it was only natural that researchers looked to the animal brain for inspiration. In fact, for many, many centuries, human beings have been building automata and some sort of autonomous machines alike, hoping they would eventually perform some work for their human masters. Yet, as intelligent as we believe to be, we just could not figure out how to get machines to exhibit any sign of intelligence. Despite how much we tried, machines would not even be able to understand directions! We knew, however, that such an ambitious objective was attainable, since the animal brain was living proof of it. If only we could fathom out how the brain works, we would just have to replicate the model. In fact, exciting early neurophysiological studies were able to identify a number of truly fundamental principles of how the brain works. For instance, as we discuss in detail in the previous chapter, the brain builds a model of the outside world, through the competition and cooperation among neurons. Still, it soon became apparent that, beyond these cardinal principles, it was not realistic to expect, that our investigation of the brain would reveal much detail on the exact neural processes responsible for intelligent behavior. Fascinatingly, however, the brain is not the only model we can use to replicate intelligent behavior. As we saw in the previous chapter, State Formation is another fascinating fantastic example, where we observe - and from which we can learn - how intelligent behavior is brought about. Indeed, at this point it is worth considering what is intelligent behavior really about? It is certainly difficult to reach a consensus on such a sensitive and relevant subject; but it seems reasonable to say that we will recognize a living being is acting intelligently, if it exhibits a remarkable ability to devise a strategy to achieve a certain crucial complex goal; where, for a living being, there is undoubtedly no objective as crucial and complex as to prevail in Nature's competition for survival. Now, given that we can very well conceive human societies as living beings, it would then be reasonable to say that a state acts intelligently, if it exhibits a remarkable ability to devise strategies leading to the florescence of the society.

The advantage of using State Formation as our model of intelligent behavior is obvious: whereas it is extremely difficult to get any insight on how individual neurons behave or how they interact with one another, the historical record has endless data on human conducts as well as how the competition and cooperation among humans led to the rise of the State. Now, it would here be reasonable to argue, that whether a kingdom flourished or not was just a matter of how intelligent the king was. We would then be back to explaining the origin of intelligent behavior by the existence of a magical intelligent agent. However, as discussed in previous chapter's example model of State Formation, the historical record speaks against this argument, since we would be really hard pressed to find any king, who ever genuinely sought the wellbeing of His subjects, instead of strictly His Majesty's Kingdom's prosperity. Absolutely, if we consider the historical record, the hypothesis that everybody was seeking his or her own benefit certainly feels more accurate. Still, at a first glance, it may be hard to see how the collectivity would flourish, if everybody is pulling in his or her own way; however, it is here important to keep in mind that one often achieves the greatest benefit if he or she cooperates with other individuals. Definitely, if we consider the historical record, it seems safe to assume that whenever a king implemented policies to improve the wellbeing of His subjects, it was just because he predicted in the long run such strategy would lead to His Majesty's Kingdom's prosperity.

As a matter of fact, still unresolved remains the whole problem of how to come up with a good strategy to achieve one's goals. Certainly, the hypothesis is not that there is no grey matter involved and we just randomly try out stuff. Rather, as it was discussed in detail in the previous chapter, the hypothesis is that the brain builds a model of the outside world. Indeed, the hypothesis is that the scientific method represents the best description of how the brain brings about intelligent behavior. Not unlike a scientific model predicts future observations, if our brain is able to accurately predict what is going to happen, intelligent behavior becomes just a matter of selecting the action predicted to yield the greatest benefit. Undeniably, it feels an impossible miracle that dynamics as simple as competition and cooperation between billions of neurons would lead to intelligent behavior; but who would have guessed ten thousand years ago that the competition and cooperation between billions of humans, each pulling in his or her own way, seeking his or her own benefit, would down the road eventually lead to modern complex societies, whith sophisticated systems and institutions of health care, education, justice, transportation, etc.. As impossible as it would have felt, fact of the matter is this is exactly what happened and that was exactly how it happen. If kings ordered the construction of roads, it was not because His Majesty thought it would enhance the lives of His subjects; but so that He could efficiently move His armies wherever He needed them to be. If kings established some law and provided justice to their subjects, it was not out of concern for their wellbeing; but because His Majesty predicted that folks would be willing to accept and submit to His authority, if He ensured a safe and peaceful environment. If medieval English land-owners agreed to pay tribute to their Anglosaxon kings, it was because they understood the Danegeld was necessary to fund mercenary armies and defensive fleets against Viking raids. They certainly could have never thought (neither could they probably have cared less...) that those taxes would down the road be the motivation and ultimate reason, why England developed the most efficient administration and became one of the most wealthy and powerful kingdoms in Europe. If American colonial, landed, slave-owning magnates offered freedom to those slaves, who enlisted to fight in the war for independence; it was obviously because they wanted to free themselves from the obligation to pay the taxes demanded by the English Parlament. As a matter of fact, the success of the American Revolution became the big exception to the rule: If almost all revolutions turned out so traumatic, it was because - as much as everybody claimed to seek the good of the nation - everybody was actually pulling in his or her very own direction, indeed. This fact is blatant in our fake-Democracy system: in theory we elect the candidate or party we believe will best steer the nation into prosperity; but in practice we vote for whoever we reckon will favor our very own standing. Evidently, we are constantly looking for ways to advance our particular interests: If Czar Alexander II abolished serfdom, it was because the Crimean War made it clear that His Highness' empire would be stronger, if more people had an opportunity to contribute to it. Indeed, slavery was only abolished in the United States once the American Civil War proved the North's slavery-opposed ideology was stronger than the South's ideology of keeping black folks enslaved. 

Yes, it is good to elaborate a strategy, but we should not forget that  what we really need is a successful strategy. Yet, how can we know if a given strategy is going to work or not? After all, a strategy is nothing but an hypothesis on how to achieve a certain goal; thus, we can never be sure whether a hypothesis is always going to work or not, because - as we saw in the previous chapter - we will never be able to be sure, whether a hypothesis is always going to be correct or not. This is the recurrent caveat of supervised learning: if we seek to attain a certain goal, supervised learning is the natural way to go; but supervised learning requires a supervising expert, knowledgeable enough to be able to tell us whether our hypothesis was correct or not. The problem is that more often than we wish - especially when it comes to abstract goals -, it is not at all straightforward to tell whether our strategy was successful or not. Indeed, how on Earth will you be able to know if a given food provided the nutrints your organism  needs? How can you be sure that the pill you took was really the cause why your health improved? Does that special person really love you? Moreover, the mother of all questions: are you happy? As a matter of fact, for better or worse, when it comes to living things fighting to prevail in the competition for survival, such a reliable, knowledgeable supervising expert does exist: namely, Nature's 'survival of the fittest rule'. Yes, Nature's 'survival of the fittest' is always the incorruptible judge, who ultimately determines which are the best strategies: namely, did you survive or did you go extinct? Needless to say, Once truth has been spoken, it is only intelligent to join the camp of the most successful strategy.   

It all comes to show that a collectivity will maximize its probability to succeed in the most complex of endeavors, if the members of said collectivity follow their instinct in pursuit of their very own, selfish interests, but along the process keep looking for ways to cooperate with other members with whom they share interests. In other words, as anybody could have guessed, true democracy (as opposed to fake-Democracy) represents the magical recipe for a collectivity's success, in that the very simple dynamics followed by all the collectivity's members is best described by the realization that the good of the whole is the most effective strategy to secure one's own happiness. To make a long story short, as any careful analysis of Nature shows, optimal designs are defined by a perfect balance of competition and cooperation among all the components of the system. 

Admittedly, though, when it comes to human societies, it is easy to visualize how the competition and cooperation among humans shape the strategies and policies followed by the collectivity. But, what exactly does it mean competition and cooperation among neurons? More precisely, how does the competition and cooperation among neurons shape the strategies, behaviors and actions of the individual organism? Probably the best answer to this question is that the firing of a neuron represents a vote in a true democratic society. According to this view, a neuron's firing conveys the neuron's belief, that a certain stimulus is present in the surroundings, or calls for the execution of a certain action. Indeed, the model of the world built by the brain has a perceptual side and a motor side. On one hand the model represents the current state of the environment and, on the other hand, codes the dynamics that the environment is going to follow. Now, if we know the current state and we understand how the thing works, all what there is left is to decide which way we want the thing to go; that is, what is our objective?

  

Yes, the intelligent men of Civilization have always instructed us to ask ourselves, what is our objective. All to then immediately tell us the answer: For a very long time we had to win Heaven. However, since the advent of fake-Democracy, we are instead instructed to strive for the nation's supremacy over the rest of the world. It is just too bad that those most intelligent among us at the top of the social hierarchy never want to join into the effort, by paying their share of taxes. Indeed, it all seems a manipulation scheme to have us all do as they say, because it really does not feel it takes a privileged mind to figure out the answer to the question: namely, we just want to be happy, do we not?

Now, this really seems to be the big question: how do we find happiness in life? If we conclueded State Formation is an excellent source of inspiration on how the brain works - since we could identify a truly remarkable parallelism between the brain of an animal organism and the state of a nation -; we may be able to find a good, strong hypothesis to such a paramount question, if we consider what leads a nation to happiness. In point of fact, in this other case the answer does not look that convoluted. Indeed, it stands to reason to hypothesize that nations could feel something very similar to happiness whenever they attain supremacy over the rest of the world. For example, the citizens of Rome definitely were ecstatic when they received the news of the fall of Carthage. It therefore likewise stands to reason to hypothesize that throughout evolution living beings evolved to feel happy, whenever they attain a good standing in the environment. This hypothesis in fact follows our other previous hypothesis, according to which Nature's survival-of-the-fittest rule forces living things to follow optimal designs. Indeed, the evolutionary advantage for an animal which feels happy whenever it achieves a strong standing in the environment, is that it would not need to die in order to get to grips with the fact, that it was following a terribly misguided survival strategy. It is important to keep in mind, however, that this is just a hypothesis and, as it was discussed in the previous chapter, it is therefore most absolutely reasonable to disagree with it. There is not a good reason to get all rod up over any such disagreement, though. As the scientific method prescribes, in order to clarify the matter, all what we need to do is to test whether the model replicates the data or not.

Be that as it may, our hypothesis implies that the fight to prevail in the competition for survival becomes represented by our endless pursuit of happiness. The conundrum therefore gets a bit simplified: if happiness means being in good standing in the environment, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that we will find happiness if we feel loved, obtain food, feel healthy, reach sexual climax, attain power, feel safe, etc.. As a matter of fact, we probably did not need any prior hypothesis, but it was already intuitive that whatever improves our fitness would contribute to our happiness. Thus, the next question then becomes how to we attain all these other abstract subgoals? Yes, it certainly felt daunting to define happiness, but it is not exactly straightforward either to spell out in words abstract concepts, such as love, health, power, safety, etc.. In any case, as we can see, as we hypothesized in the previous chapter, our natural language is a formidable coding scheme to represent all this kind of information: namely, what is happiness?, how to we achieve happiness?, what is love?? how do we win the love of another person?, what is food? how can we get some food?, what is sex? how do we gain power over other folks?, etc.. Lo and behold, we run into our conceptual framework!

 

Our conceptual framework is our repository of information of the world around us. It is the knowledge we are conscious about; that is, our "conscious" knowledge. As discussed in earlier sections, it does not constitute all our knowledge, but only the part that is coded with words. It is therefore made up of the conclusions we have reasoned out, as well as the knowledge we have acquired from other people. Our need of love, our pursuit of pleasure and all other factors contributing to our level of happiness will always remain the ultimate (unconscious) motives and driving forces of our behaviors; however - to the extent that Civilization has little by little indoctrinated us to value our reasoned-out (conscious) knowledge over our instinct - our conceptual knowledge functions as our operating system. Yes, our pursuit of happiness will always be the ultimate motive and driving force of our behaviors and actions; but, then again, how do we achieve happiness?

  

It would be fair to say that the model of the world our brain slowly builds throughout our lives is actually aimed at finding out how happiness comes about. Now, for better or worse, this learning process is not a merely individual, but a collective endeavor. Indeed, since the definitions of the concepts in our conceptual framework are coded in natural language, our understanding of how things work and how stuff comes about will naturally be profoundly shaped by the information we receive from other people. This obviously has the advantage that we will benefit from the research billions of other human beings conducted prior to us; but we should always keep in mind that the information we receive from other people sometimes is not as reliable as they say. Be that as it may, we are finally ready to address the crucial question of how our (collective) conceptual framework slowly developed throughout Evolution.

 

As thoroughly discussed in the previous chapters, the scientific method represents the best description of the learning scheme followed by the brain to find out how things work and stuff comes about. Given that our ultimate objective is to find happiness in life, it stands to reason to say that our brain's learning process kicks off with the paramount question of how does happiness come about. Yet, it will not be long before we start getting some feeling that we feel happy whenever we experience certain stuff. At first it will only be an intuition, until at some point a (language-coded)  hypothesis will be raised. If this hypothesis is confirmed, a new concept is formed. There is, however, no good reason to wait until any such hypotheses is confirmed, before our brain begins investigating how that other stuff comes about. Clearly, we can think of the brain's learning process as the one followed by a student learning to play chess. The ultimate objective is the happiness we will feel when we achieve victory; but how do we get there? Clearly, it is not practical to shoot for the King directly; but it is better to identify a number of intermediate subgoals and figure out what strategies we could follow to achieve each of them. Now, often, it is hard - if not altogether impossible - to work for several different subgoals simultaneously, and it is necessary to choose between alternative strategies. Last but not least, it is not enough to devise a learning scheme to find out how things work and how stuff comes about; but - if the claim we make is that this is how the animal brain does it - it should be possible to implement the model in the brain's massively parallel and distributed neural architecture.