Scientific Brain Model Chapter XI

 CHAPTER XI state formation provides some fascinating insight on how populations of trillions of self-serving neurons competing against and cooperating with one another may naturally lead to the emergence of complex (intelligent) conducts, whereby the organism's wellbeing and standing in the world is advanced.

To the extent that - not unlike the cells of a multi-cellular organism - humans associate with one another, it is very illuminating to conceive human societies as living beings. The key benefit is to understand that - as any other living being - human societies are subject to Nature's 'survival of the fittest' rule. In other words, - not unlike any other living being - human societies will have to fight for their survival, where those who follow good strategies will prevail, whereas those who follow bad strategies will in all likelihood die off. Now, a careful analysis of Nature reveals that a perfect equilibrium of competition an cooperation is the key for any complex system fitness and success. Needless to say, if the survival of the fittest is Nature's basic law, it naturally follows that all living beings compete for survival against one another. A bit more intricate, however, is how cooperation comes about. Indeed, how are you going to cooperate with someone you are competing against? Well, as much as one competes against other living beings in the group, it is always possible to cooperate in the pursuit of those goals in which the individual members of the group are not in conflict. It will definitely be a step forward if we can at least agree in the most critical survival objective, and therefore refrain from eating one another. Then, - as any social animal could tell you - if we work together, we will be stronger.

Now, make no mistake, just because we agreed to cooperate in certain endeavors, it does not mean that we stopped being selfish. For instance, we may work together in the pursuit of food; but, when it comes to mating, you dare to smile at her boy or look at his girl. Evidently, for only one thing, we will compete for leadership. Certainly, the most natural approach has the strongest in charge of the entire group. However, it stands to reason to think that it will be best, if whoever is most knowledgeable and has the utmost concern for the group's wellbeing, will be the one we select to lead the way. As it turns out, - given that neither humans nor the rest of Nature know anything such as democracy - it is always the case that the strong takes over, and all what will be left for the rest is to pray that the group's leadership will lead us in the right direction. Definitely, the ultimate test will always be Nature's 'survival of the fittest'. So much for the group's leadership knowledge and care, if they do not live up to the claim, and do not know how to take care of all the group's needs and desires, the whole system is going to collapse.

it is worth considering what leads a domestic animal to accept domestication. Indeed, it is not like human beings do a whole lot to ensure their domestic animals do not run away. As a matter of fact, it is well known that, should any such domestic animal ever try to leave the protection of its human owners, its likelihood to survive in the wilderness are basically inexistent. Regardless of whether or not they are aware of this fact, perhaps the right question to ask is why would they ever want to run away, if all of their basic needs are being taken care of? For example, let us consider the case of a hunting dog. Undoubtedly, a human and a dog will be better able to hunt game, than if they would go separate ways, each of them hunting on its own. This is so much so, that since the amount of game will always be limited, - given Nature's 'survival of the fittest' law - those humans and those dogs who cooperate with each other will flourish, whereas those humans and dogs who do not cooperate with each other will be starved into extinction. In our mental framework, it is certainly natural to think that - to the extent that the human is in charge - domestication constitutes a dramatic step backward for the dog, as it unequivocally means the end of dog's freedom. This is so much so that humans are free to dispose of the lives of their dog pets. We call it domestication, but effectively it is not really any different from slavery. On the other hand, given that a dog is a precious asset, what human would be stupid enough to get rid of his or her dog? I mean, let us be pragmatic, I do not know about you, but if I had to choose between being a dog or a homeless person in today's fake-democratic society; - other than an astray - I would very much prefer to be a dog. Believe me, I know what I am talking about. 

In fact, I would dare to extend my reasoning to basically any kind of domestic animal. Sheep, for example, will eventually even pay with their lives their submission to humans; but it is worth considering if they would fare any better outside of human watch. Undeniably, we periodically slaughter some lamb; but - given that they are such a valuable asset to us - we put a shepherd dog to protect them from other predators. In fact, we do a whole lot for them: we provide for their nourishment, we give them shelter, we do our best to keep them healthy, etc.. To make a long story short, it is in our best interest to ensure they flourish. Indeed, when all is said and done, it is absolutely reasonable to wonder who domesticated whom? Given that in this wild world of ours domination is so critical for our survival, it is only natural to frame the question in terms of power and control. However, it is far more productive to consider what works and what does not. It certainly does not serve any purpose to agonize ourselves over who gets the better end of the stick. Rather, for all what matters to humans, we benefit from the relationship, and for all what matters to sheeps, they benefit from the relationship. In other words, all what matters is that it is a mutually beneficial relationship, since - when all is said and done - both, humans and sheeps, become fitter from the relationship. Yes, humans remain free to kill our sheeps and they will not be able to do anything about it; but Nature most definitely will. As james C. Scott says, for all intends and purposes, humans came to learn that it is only foolish to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

In fact in his book "Against The Grain", Scott not only notes how raiding was self-liquidating; but also explains how the barbarian raiding mode of subsistence slowly evolved into "something that looks more like a 'protection racket'. In return for a portion of the trade goods, harvest, livestock, and other valuables, the raiders 'protect' the traders and communities against other raiders and, of course, against themselves". Now, doesn't this sound a whole lot like domestication? Absolutely!, wheter we like it or not, fact of the matter is sedentary communities are nothing but sitting ducks and, in this wild world of ours, there will always be someone out there planning on having them for lunch. Consequently, it is only in the sedentary communities best interest to associate with someone, who may be able to protect them. On the other hand, it is obviously likewise in the barbarian raiders best interest to ensure the communities they leech off flourish and prosper. As a matter of fact, Scott extends his fascinatingly insightful reasoning to highlight the striking analogy between the strategies followed by barbarian raiders and sedentary communities' ruling elites:

"barbarian-state relations can be seen as a contest between the two parties for the right to appropriate the surplus from the sedentary grain-and-manpower module. It is this module that both is the basis for state formation and is equally essential for barbarian accumulation. It is the prize. One-time plunder raiding is likely to kill the host altogether, while a stable protection racket mimics the process of state appropriation and is compatible with the long-run productivity of the grain core. ... Chinese, Greek and Arab historical sources agree that the steppe peoples were above all interested in trade. The careful manner in which Central Eurasians generally undertook their conquests is revealing. They attempted to avoid conflict and tried to get cities to submit peacefully. Only when they resisted, or rebelled, was retribution necessary. . . . The Central Eurasians’ conquests were designed to acquire trade routes or trading cities. But the reason for the acquisition was to secure occupied territory that could be taxed in order to pay for the rulers’ socio-political infrastructure. If all this sounds exactly like what sedentary peripheral states were doing, that is because it was indeed the same thing. The early agrarian states and the barbarian polities had broadly similar aims; both sought to dominate the grain-and-manpower core with its surplus. The Mongols, among other raiding nomads, compared the agrarian population to ra’aya, 'herds'. Both sought to dominate the trade that was within reach. Both were slaving and raiding states in which the major booty of war and the major commodity in trade were human beings. In this respect they were competing protection rackets."

In other words, if barbarian raiders and sedentary communities' ruling elites were doing the exact same thing, and barbarian raiders' protection-racket strategies can be understood as nothing but domestication of the sedentary communities they were leeching off; it follows that sedentary communities' ruling elites' protection-racket strategies can be likewise be very well understood as domestication of the commonfolk they ruled. In fact, archeological and historical data supports the case, according to which barbarian raiding represents - in its embrionic phase - the origin of state formation. It is certainly plausible that - as the traditional narrative has always sustained - some military force within the sedentary community somehow emerged to protect the population from the seasoned, battle-hardened barbarian raiders. However, it only makes sense that , in most of the cases (as, for instance, the Mongol Chinese Empire), it was the barbarian raiders' leaders themselves, who - after a long streneous life harrying folks all over the place - eventually decided to cash in on all those efforts and take on a more comfortable life running operations and continuing leeching off the sedentary folks' toil from the cushy throne of his cosy city palace. Alternatively, a further evolution of this scheme (as it was, for instance, the case in the last phases of the Western Roman Empire) will see the barbarian raider leader place a puppet emperor on the throne while he stayed on top of everything behind the scenes. Obviously, if you live next door to your social inferiors, certain things will have to change: namely, you cannot expect to sack the hell out of your neighbors during the day and then return to the city palace at night for a good night sleep. Obviously, if you live next door to your social inferiors, it will reveal itself necessary to keep a minimum pretense, that you care for your fellow citizens' wellbeing. If you are not able to understand this basic logic, do not agonize yourself over it; somebody else will be happy to overthrow you and figure it out for you. Indeed, whether the ruling elite likes it or not, it is in the very ruling elite own best interest to ensure the ruled community flourishes. Not unlike the good farmer who lovingly looks after his domesticates, - beyond any love, affection or concern they may try to fake for their social lessers - those ruling elites who take good care of the communities they ruled over will flourish, whereas those who only leech off them as if there were no tomorrow will only dig their own grave. There is no way around it, whether they liked it or not, the fates of the ruling elite and the communities they ruled over are inextricably and inexorably tied together. In other words, given that human societies are subject to Nature's 'survival of the fittest' rule, the only communities with a good chance of prevailing will be those, where a full-fledged state develops with strong structures, institutions and processes for the citizenship's good fortune and success. As Charles Tilly said, war made the State and the State made war. As excruciating and morally appalling as wars most certainly are, wars are to humanity, what cultural burnings are tu the natural environment. To the extent that wars represent the ultimate expression of competition, We would have never reached the imposing and truly majestic scientific and technological development we observe today, if there had not been any of those grisly (civil and foreign) wars. Indeed, - as much as every now and then the system may get trapped in a local minimum and a catastrophic collapse may follow as a result - if given sufficient time, Evolution will erratically, but surely lead ruling elites to develop the kind of good, strong and efficient health, educational, justice, economic, communication... systems necessary for the citizenship's wellbeing. Now, if all this sounds exactly like how the neurons in the brain drive the organism's actions in order to ensure its wellbeing and good standing in its environment; that is because it is indeed the same thing. Most absolutely!, do not forget, the whole purpose of the neurons in the brain is to steer the organism through life, always seeking the improvement of its standing in the world, ensuring it stays healthy (Department of the Interior, Justice, Health and Social Services), it learns the necessary skills to carry out jobs (Department of Education, Science, Innovation and Technological Development), it develops good relationships with other folks (Department of Foreign Affairs), it is always well nourished (Department of Economy, Industry and Agriculture), it stays save from other living beings attacks, and, perhaps, eventually, snatches for itself something here and there (Department of Defense, War and the Armed Forces), etc.. Yet, how did all that come about? That is, how did the neurons in the brain come to acquire all the knowledge on what commands should be issued to the other cells in the organism, in order to heal a wound, fend off a freaking mosquito, win the love of the people around us, ride a bicycle, make some food, punch some idiot in the face, etc.? For that sake, we might as well ask how human societies came to build structures, institutions and processes to ensure the safety and good health of its citizens, foster learning, scientific research and technological development, establish good relations with other nations, conduct domestic as well as international trade, promote economic growth, protect and eventually expand the national territory, etc.? Indeed, the process of state formation we observe throughout History, provides some fascinating insight on how populations of trillions of self-serving neurons competing against and cooperating with one another may naturally lead to the emergence of complex (intelligent) conducts, whereby the organism's wellbeing and standing in the world is advanced. Now, most crucially, contrary to what Graeber and Wengrow unfoundedly assume and adamantly and insistingly sustain, state formation was never a conscious process; that is, state formation was never ever a process, which could be credited to the genius of any intelligent agent. Rather, as all archeological and historical data evidences, state formation was the natural consequence of gazillions of self-serving humans competing against and cooperating with one another, seeking every one of them - not unlike every individual neuron - their very own, particular and individual interests. It is certainly possible to argue that, given that the State is a human creation, if we accept that humans are intelligent agents, then we will all have to agree that the state is the work of intelligent agents. However critically, - to the extent that none of the individual human beings, who intervened in the rise of the State, ever sought the achievement of any such objective, no intelligent agent would have ever been able to spell out what reasoning he or she follow in order to contribute to the creation of the State, and, consequently no intelligent agent could ever reasonably claim any credit for the rise of the State. Rather, as brilliant, ssmart and intelligent as we love to think we are, we will just have to admit that we simply stumbled upon it. In other words, humans were the main actors in state formation and (rather than exactly a human creation) it was so the interactions between humans what led to the rise of the State; but state formation was never the goal of any intelligent agent. Without a doubt, when the Egyptian pharaohs ordered the construction of the pyramids, it was not because they realized such a magnificent endeavor would lead to Egypt's scientific and technological advancement. When Alexander the Great, the great Charlemagne or Mehmet II the Great (to name a few) killed all their male relatives with a reasonable claim to the throne, it was not with their peoples' wellbeing front and center. When emperors and kings alike first came up with schemes to extract tribute and taxes from their most wealthy subjects in order to finance their military campaigns, it was never because they thought a wealthy state would be better able to improve the lives of their subjects. Rather, to the degree that any statesman ever look after the state's advancement, it was obviously only because, as Louis XIV unequivocally declared: "I am the State".

Now, if none of these political leaders were thinking about anything other than themselves, we may want to ask, how on Earth did they come about to put together complex, advanced societies with the kind of structures, institutions and processes necessary to ensure the wellbeing and prosperity of the entire society? For that sake, since we know the answer to this question from historians' studies of state formation, what we want to find out here is how self-serving, brainless neurons - deprived as they are of any feelings - came about to implement the kind of complex, intelligent strategies and conducts necessary to ensure the organism's wellbeing. In fact, state formation reveals that domination is the key to such astonishing development. Indeed, it makes sense to see neurons as the natural next step forward from our merciful parasitic-pathogen friend. It is certainly good that a parasitic pathogen does not leech off its host to the last drop of blood, but it is obviously much better if it leads it to flourish, so that - not unlike a well-fed pig - the host will contain more blood for the parasit to suck. Now, the obvious question is then, how on Earth is the neuron going to know, which is the most rewarding and beneficial direction for the partnership to move? Evidently, since neurons do not have any brain nor intelligent agent whatsoever, - not unlike political leaders of ancient times - it will have no other option than to just try its best guess.

Indeed, it makes sense to see neurons as the political leaders of the past; those who led their followers to the promised land establish the strategies and leadership guidelines for future leaders to follow. Yet, before you can lead, it becomes necessary to assemble some following, and that is by no means any easy task. For very good and rather obvious reasons, no human being will ever voluntarily submit to someone else's advice, unless he or she reckons it will be in his or her best interest. Not only do we need the leader to care for us; but he will have to make it self-explanatory, that he is stronger, more knowledgeable or, all in all, more powerful. The requirements are so tough, that the stars never quite aligned in the right direction for most of our existence. However, humankind's scientific and technological development slowly progressed throughout millennia, until eventually it made it possible for certain individuals to rise over all others and impose their will over their respective community. Indeed, there is a good case to be made, that metallurgy - and riligion and horseback riding afterwards - were critical factors in the rise of elite networks.

Once certain individuals were able to dominate and establish a solid following behind them, - as History and the brain show - it was all downhill to nowadays' complex advanced societies. Yes, if not ignited, domination fueled competition and cooperation among humans to levels totally unimaginable until then. If penguins never group together to go deliver a beating to the penguin colony next iceberg over; it is simply because no penguin will ever be able to gain enough sway over his mates, in order to have them follow him. Domination may not be the ideal form of cooperation, but - to the degree that everybody is pulling in the same direction - everybody is cooperating with one another. On the other hand, there will be a fierce competition for leadership, or, perhaps, you would not want to have everybody do as you say? 

Regardless of what were the leaders' actual motives and reasonings, whenever a strategy led a group to a remarkable success, everybody would take note and follow the example for generations to come. However, often short-term success was only an illusion before an eventual catastrophic collapse. Yet, in all likelihood, in the vicinity some other groups would have follow different strategies and would now be able to extract conclusions and take it from there. As a matter of fact, - not unlike in the brain - time would prove that the results would be better, if an ever growing number of individuals participate in the decision-making process; that is, if the competition for leadership, as well as the cooperation intensified. Indeed, with Evolution, our lonely parasitic neuron eventually associated with many other neurons, until eventually they came to form something like a brain. Needless to say, this did not happen out of thin air; but the neuron's DNA predispose it to connect and work together with other fellow neurons. These neural populations will then represent a population code defining how the organism should move next. As a matter of fact, each neuron's firing signifies a prospective course of action, which will have to compete against all others. When all is said and done, those strategies yielding greater reward will be reinforced, whereas those others leading to failure will be inhibited. In addition, throughout Evolution slight variations in the genetic code will produce slight variations in the brain structural and functional dynamics. Some specimens will develop some form of long-term memory, others will exhibit more loving behaviors, yet some others will be inclined to more aggressive conducts, etc.. At the end of the day, Nature's 'survival of the fittest' law will have the last word and the more successful specimens' strategies will prevail, whereas the less competitive will slowly be driven into extinction. In fact, we can think of countless analogies evidencing how the brain and the State evolved in the same way: Indeed, - in the same way that those human societies who develop writing will do better than those who do not - those brains who develop long-term memory will fare better than those who do not. Similarly, - in the same way that those human societies who adopt puppet governments will do worse in the long run, than those whose governments are held accountable for their policies - those brains whose neurons only leech off all the other cells in the organism as if there were no tomorrow, will be more likely to go extinct, than those brains whose neurons only take their fair share of the nutrients. Still by the same token, - in the same way that those human societies, who take on overbearingly imperialistic policies will, with the passing of time, make more and more enemies, until the day they are defeated and taken apart - those brains who follow the cruelest conducts will be doomed to die off in the long run. 

In conclusion, as it shows, both, individual humans and individual neurons follow the same reinforcement learning strategies, and, both, human societies and neural populations are subject to the very same Nature's 'survival of the fittest' law. Consequently, if two massively-Parallel-and-Distributed-processing populations of gazillions of competing and cooperating units follow the same internal dynamics and are subject to the very same 'survival of the fittest' law; it is only mathematical that (if given sufficient time) they will eventually converge into the same miraculous global optimum. In general and more colloquial terms, every complex system in Nature requires resources to prolong its existence. Yet, since the resources available in Nature are not infinite, sooner or later a competition for such resources will emerge and intensify. Every human being in this planet except of me is most absolutely convinced, that in order to prevail in this competition, it will be necessary the brightest light bulb to think up the most intelligent strategy. However, state formation shows that, in order to find the most powerful of all strategies, it sufficed if the gazillions of units of the complex system persevered in those actions which yielded reward, whereas those actions which led to penalty were abandoned.