‘Order and chaos shape all our attempts to understand our world,’ the historian [[David Christian]] has argued, ‘in part because we are built to see complex structures.’
Chaos is all of that which we perceive as devoid of form or pattern, the irregularities we cannot predict, the things beyond our mental grasp that mystify us and appear irreversibly foggy to our prying, limited perspectives.
As [[David Christian]] puts it, ‘any definition of chaotic behaviour depends on the scale of inquiry. Phenomena which at a lower level of analysis appear to be chaotic may display more order when viewed from a higher, more all-embracing perspective.’2
Historically, intellectual progress has therefore been characterised by new perspectives from where order has become visible in what previously appeared as chaos.
The branch of mathematics known as ‘chaos theory’ that made it possible to formally study complex phenomena that could not be accounted for with the traditional tools of science has thus been a continuation of this development towards making order out of chaos.
It largely revolves around creating models to make sense of seemingly random occurrences by identifying how they comport with underlying universal patterns.
As such, it is not a field like that of chemistry or biology, studying a delimitated area of reality, but more like a method that can be used in a number of different areas of inquiry. In a way, it is, as [[Neil Johnson]] has described it, an ‘umbrella science’, or a ‘science about sciences’.
order
Hence, order manifests itself in our mental world through an innate instinct for pattern recognition. Our capacity to determine the regularities of risks and chances, where there is likely to be danger and where we might find opportunities, has been vital for our survival and thus been refined to ever-greater sophistication by evolutionary pressures.
Complexity
The scientist and mathematician [[Warren Weaver]] argued that complexity can be seen as a a Third Scientific Revolution.
The first revolution was that of mechanics, now referred to as ‘classical mechanics’, which made it possible to study the linear relations we know from Newton’s equations.
(Note that when I talk about linearity it not only refers to what in mathematics is known as ‘linear functions’, it even includes exponential functions. On a logarithmic scale the latter can actually be plotted as a linear increase.)7
Classical mechanics studies that which with certainty occurs (a rock falls to the ground when dropped, a still billiard ball will move when hit by another, etc.).
Statistics (or statistical mechanics) brought the second revolution about by facilitating the study of complicated chemical processes by adding up a large number of likely events. This method also proved very useful in the social sciences
third revolution of complexity is the study of the dazzlingly unpredictable that occurs all the same, like the emergence of life forms, a category 5 hurricane, a new thought perspective,
In his 1949 article “Science and Complexity📄” [[Warren Weaver]] associates this change with the location of a “great middle region” of scientific problems of organized complexity” between the “problems of simplicity” that physical sciences are concerned with and the “problems of disorganized complexity” that can be solved by probability theory and statistics. Weaver stated that “something more is needed than the mathematics of averages.” To solve such problems he pinned his hope on the power of digital computers and on interdisciplinary collaborating “mixed teams”.
The roots of complexity science can be traced back to the 1950s with cybernetics’ attempt to understand self-organisation and the research of chaos theory, that it is closely associated with, in the 1960s and ’70s. In 1984 a major step was taken when the Santa Fe Institute was founded, which has now become a world centre for complexity research.
The study of complexity can according to the physicist and systems scientist [[Yaneer Bar-Yam]] be seen as the investigation of ‘how relationships between parts give rise to the collective behaviors of a system and how the system interacts and forms relationships with its environment.’
self-organization
emergent phenomena #emergence
thought perspectives
at each stage a new symbolic invention in our wordview has been seen as the highest authority on truth and justice. The historically most important of these have been God, Science and the Market.
systems
personal level
collective level
universal level
Highlights first synced by #Readwise January 4th, 2021
The central idea in Part 1 is that humanity has progressed through four fundamentally different stages of experiencing and interpreting the world, that which I call ‘thought perspectives’, and that at each stage a new symbolic invention in our wordview has been seen as the highest authority on truth and justice. The historically most important of these have been God, Science and the Market.
This book is therefore a book about systems and systems thinking. About different kinds of interconnected dynamic complex systems acting on different time scales and with completely different properties and makeup. And still all interconnected and interdependent. We will be studying systems on a personal level, on a collective level and on a universal level and be interested in how they interact and relate to each other and what tools we need to develop in order to understand them.
a few key concepts used throughout this book to understand the development of systems deserve an introduction: chaos, complexity, self-organisation and emergent phenomena.
Hence, order manifests itself in our mental world through an innate instinct for pattern recognition. Our capacity to determine the regularities of risks and chances, where there is likely to be danger and where we might find opportunities, has been vital for our survival and thus been refined to ever-greater sophistication by evolutionary pressures.
As such, it is not a field like that of chemistry or biology, studying a delimitated area of reality, but more like a method that can be used in a number of different areas of inquiry. In a way, it is, as Neil Johnson has described it, an ‘umbrella science’, or a ‘science about sciences’.
There is no commonly agreed-upon definition of the term ‘complexity’, but it is generally used to describe something with many diverse parts interacting with each other in varying and distinct patterns. The term is also used as a measure of development, to define how complex a certain structure is in relation to another.
Roughly speaking, ‘complexity’ refers to qualitative aspects (the particular ways things are ordered), ‘complicated’ merely quantitative ones (the number of things in interaction with each other).
The scientist and mathematician Warren Weaver argued that complexity can be seen as a ‘third scientific revolution’.6 The first revolution was that of mechanics, now referred to as ‘classical mechanics’, which made it possible to study the linear relations we know from Newton’s equations. (Note that when I talk about linearity it not only refers to what in mathematics is known as ‘linear functions’, it even includes exponential functions. On a logarithmic scale the latter can actually be plotted as a linear increase.)7 Classical mechanics studies that which with certainty occurs (a rock falls to the ground when dropped, a still billiard ball will move when hit by another, etc.). Statistics (or statistical mechanics) brought the second revolution about by facilitating the study of complicated chemical processes by adding up a large number of likely events. This method also proved very useful in the social sciences
third revolution of complexity is the study of the dazzlingly unpredictable that occurs all the same, like the emergence of life forms, a category 5 hurricane, a new thought perspective,
The roots of complexity science can be traced back to the 1950s with cybernetics’ attempt to understand self-organisation and the research of chaos theory, that it is closely associated with, in the 1960s and ’70s. In 1984 a major step was taken when the Santa Fe Institute was founded, which has now become a world centre for complexity research.
Complicated systems are a little harder to study with such methods, but they can be analysed linearly by studying each part in isolation and then investigating how they are connected. This has traditionally been where natural science has functioned best. Newton’s great contribution was to take the complicated solar system and divide up the movements of the planets into simple linear relations through a number of reductions.
Complex systems differ from complicated ones by being more open. A clock is a relatively closed system.
Complex systems, on the other hand, are in a constant interplay with their surroundings. An organism can only maintain its structure by a continuous exchange of matter and energy between itself and its environment.
This makes it more complex than a clock since there are more factors to consider, and also more unpredictable. Although it is impossible to account for all of these factors, the processes that occur do behave in accordance with a number of rules relating to the organism’s attempt to maintain its overall structure, or a ‘will’ to survive if you like. These rules can be used to predict its actions within a certain margin of probability, or at least narrow down the number of possible outcomes we should consider. Such rules, however, do not apply to complex systems such as the weather, the global market and other similarly decentralised systems since they do not contain a regulatory core of self-maintenance dictating every part to preserve its structure. The overarching structure in these systems is merely the result of the sum of all the individual components’ agency and their mutual interactions. To differentiate the two kinds of complex systems I have chosen a separate term for the latter: complex chaotic systems (but for brevity I will just use ‘chaotic systems’).
‘complex chaotic systems’ and ‘complex systems’. Financial markets and organisms are commonly treated as the same type of systems, but I believe it is important to differentiate between the two.
In contrast to complex systems, chaotic systems contain many independent self- regulated entities acting according to, often surprisingly, simple rules that generate greater systemic patterns.
Chaotic systems are also less rigid and more open than complex ones. A complex system cannot deviate too much from a certain order without breaking completely apart. A few disruptions to an organism’s order are often enough to kill it. Chaotic systems can on the other hand take a number of forms and still remain a coherent system. In this way they can be said to be more chaotic than a complex system since there are simply so many ways it can organise itself and still remain a whole. Paradoxically, however, the chaotic systems are from the perspective of chaos theory simultaneously more deterministic (in theory, that is, as mentioned before), since there is nothing but the initial conditions to affect its outcome. So even though the complex systems appear to have fewer possible trajectories due to their more rigid structure, their higher-level agency in terms of a self-maintaining centre makes their behaviour impossible to predict since this governing whole cannot be inferred from any of its parts, not even in theory.
The structure of chaotic systems emerges through a process known as ‘self-organisation’ that is the result of the way their individual components (in human systems we usually talk about agents), in accordance with sets of rules determining their responses, interact with each other and the environment.
However, once in a while something truly unpredictable happens when a chaotic system spontaneously organises itself in a way that suddenly gives it novel properties that cannot be deduced from studying the properties and past behaviour of the system, nor from any of its components – ‘surprises’, so to speak. Hereby the system has transformed itself into a new – emergent – phenomenon, an entirely new order of existence.
emergence is defined as the spontaneous occurrence of new systemic properties that cannot be found in those of the emergent system’s individual components. Only when a ‘surprise’ like this occurs that cannot be predicted from the rules governing the behaviour of the systems’ components can we talk about an emergent phenomenon. As the evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr has argued, ‘[chaotic] systems almost always have the peculiarity that the characteristics of the whole cannot (not even in theory) be deduced from the most complete knowledge of the components, taken separately or in other partial combinations. This appearance of new characteristics in wholes has been designated as emergence.’12 So whereas the behaviour of chaotic systems in theory is deterministic according to chaos theory, complexity science adds the crucial exception that this does not apply when they give rise to emergence. A new level of complexity is always the result of such non-deterministic events since the emergent whole they bring about cannot be deduced from that which gives rise
What constitutes an emergent whole is also how we can distinguish one level of complexity from another.
It is important to stress the term ‘deduced’ when we say such linear inferences cannot tell us anything about the properties that emerge on a higher level of complexity. If we accept a reductionist approach it is not conceptually invalid to say that complex structures consist of nothing but their parts, but it is theoretically incorrect that we can deduce the properties of an emergent phenomenon from its parts. It simply remains to be seen how even the best knowledge about the properties of atoms alone can predict the behaviour of a molecule or how we can use chemistry to predict those of an organism. The notion that everything ‘fundamentally’ is made of nothing but subatomic particles is therefore as simple-mindedly reductionist as it is theoretically inadequate. Being an expert on particle physics will not help us explain how air particles can form tornados, how carbohydrates and amino acids can assemble into life forms, or how neurons can bring about poetry and algebra.
PART 1 The Great Thought Perspectives
A ‘thought perspective’ is the overarching, foundational view of the world that shapes more or less our entire way of thinking: how we interpret symbolic and sensory information, including our own thoughts, what kinds of narratives we tell ourselves about the world; how we relate to others, how we organise society, how we work, even how we have sex. A thought perspective is the glue that holds our inner world of symbols together and gives them meaning.
Others would perhaps make do with simply calling them worldviews, but for me it is not only about seeing the world in a certain way. It is just as much about how and what we can think. Thought perspectives contain symbol tools – updated ‘software’ for our brain – that enable us to think in new ways.
thought perspective refers to one of four different developmentally dependent, overarching ways of thinking. They are as follows: The animist thought perspective: Emerged c. 50,000 years ago during the Stone Age. Characterised by animistic and magical beliefs, an occupation with a spirit world and no differentiation between physical and mental reality. Still present among some indigenous populations today. The religious or pre-modern thought perspective: Emerged c. 800 BCE at different locations across the central axis of Eurasia, in some aspects as early as 2000 BCE in Egypt and Mesopotamia, but to its fullest extent only blossoming after 500 CE with the consolidation of the great moral religions such as Christianity, Islam or Buddhism. Characterised by transcendental ideas of salvation, divine law and the rationalisation of mythology in accordance with universal theological principles. Still dominant in many developing countries and in certain areas of the West. The rational or modern thought perspective: Emerged c. 1500 CE in Europe during the Renaissance, but in some aspects in its proto-variant as early as 500 BCE in Greece. Blossoming only in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Characterised by rationalistic and scientific thought, notions of progress and material growth, emancipation of the individual from arbitrary religious and political control, and human rights and democracy. Remains the most dominant thought perspective today. The postmodern thought perspective: Emerged in the twentieth century in the West, though some aspects appeared in the late eighteenth century. Characterised by a critique of rationalism, progress and established power relations, concerns with issues such as the environment, gender and race, and a highly relativistic and pluralistic perspective. Yet to fully blossom and become the most dominant, but highly influential in much of intellectual life in the West today and particularly
common among the educated classes.
Despite the homogenising effects of globalisation, there still remains a vast multitude of different symbol worlds that give every culture its own unique views, values and habits of thought.
The emergence of thought perspectives is deterministic in the way they are shaped by how thought itself is structured. This gives them universal properties that with necessity appear when certain conditions are present. Symbol worlds largely emerge from random historical developments that can shape the specific languages, aesthetic traditions, customs and other features of a community in a number of unique and particularistic ways.
we will through the book be moving back and forth between three scales of evolution and development: the personal scale, the collective scale and the universal, cosmic scale.
begin our story on the universal scale with the Big Bang almost 14 billion years ago.
One of the driving forces behind the Universe’s propensity towards self-organisation is gravity. Around 400 million years after the Big Bang, enormous clouds of matter begin coalescing under the force of gravity. What emerges are, however, not just dense balls of atoms, but yet another emergent phenomenon: stars.
‘the first law of thermodynamics’, which states that energy can be transformed from one form to another, but that the total energy in an isolated system is constant.
second law of thermodynamics states that in closed systems, such as the Universe, the amount of free energy, the type of energy that can perform ‘work’, tends to dissipate over time.
Somehow, the drive towards disorder creates novel forms of order. But how is this possible? First of all, gravity ensures that matter is assembled in higher densities in certain parts of the Universe despite its constant expansion. The second reason is the peculiar way complex structures, especially organic ones, use energy. The second law of thermodynamics applies to all closed physical systems, but as the physicist Erwin Schrödinger pointed out in his influential book What Is Life?, it does not apply in the same way to the open systems that we call ‘life’.8 Obviously, all lifeforms cool off, or die, without any influx of energy from the outside. But since they are ‘open systems’ and have intricate mechanisms to take up energy from outside themselves they can thereby counter ‘the arrow’ of history and over time be built up instead of broken down. Complex structures therefore need a constant throughput of energy to help them ‘climb entropy’s remorseless down escalator’;9 and the higher the level of complexity, the more energy is required.
Complex creatures like mammals require more energy than less complex ones like insects, and complex biological organs like brains likewise require more energy than other body parts. A human brain, the most complex entity we know of, is accordingly the most energy-consuming phenomenon in relation to size.10 This principle also applies to human societies: Complex industrial societies require much more energy than simple farming societies.
Complexity thus speeds up the pace of which the second law of thermodynamics works towards its final destination: a Universe without order, a state of equilibrium where all free energy has been consumed and only a left-over in the form of cosmic background radiation remains.
But what is life exactly? The Nobel prize-winning physicist Erwin Schrödinger famously stated that we cannot break it down to a checklist. Neither metabolism, reproduction nor any other specifics like these are sufficient to define life since we always end up with exceptions that can be observed elsewhere in the non-organic world. Instead, he argues that we should look at how life on the overall systemic level differs significantly from other phenomena, for instance how ‘[t]he unfolding of events in the life cycle of an organism exhibits an admirable regularity and orderliness, unrivalled by anything we meet with in inanimate matter’.12 Accordingly, life is above all characterised by being significantly more complex than anything else in the known Universe.
The foremost qualitative aspect is first of all that life must constantly tap into matter and energy flows from outside itself in order to exist and multiply.
In order to maintain their complexity, biological organisms must extract matter from their surroundings, break it down, and release the excess materials into the environment.
In addition, a notable property of life is how well it handles these energy densities. Life can handle far denser energy flows than stars without breaking apart (or exploding), which allows it to climb farther and faster up the thermodynamic down escalator by ‘sucking orderliness from its environment’,16 in the words of Schrödinger (again, more complexity
Whereas stars and planets can undergo differentiation in form, only biological regimes can do so in function
Function is thus one of the new emergent properties that life brought into existence.
to ensure their continued existence and proliferation, organisms need to obey the rule that extreme precision is required. The mechanisms to facilitate the delicate task of handling large energy flows must be highly fine-tuned and accurate, mere approximation is rarely good enough.18 The precision required has no parallel in the inanimate world. A rock can be ordered rather randomly without any noteworthy changes to its properties, but living organisms will break down due to the slightest deviation from a certain order and thus immediately turn into dead matter that soon disintegrates into its less complex constituents. This, however, also makes them exceedingly more fragile. As such, we find the basis of yet another change to the game. With life, a new factor of change comes into being: natural selection. Because organic lifeforms are so fragile and constantly risk elimination before they get a chance to reproduce, a process of constant innovation and adaptability to the destructive forces of the environment come to define the development of change on Earth hereafter.
Around 3.5 billion years ago, biological life starts to emerge out of the physical and chemical prerequisites that prevail on the early Earth. Precisely how the first forms of life arose we do not know, but the Universe has, as we have seen, a tendency towards spontaneous self-organisation. The emergence of life is an almost immediate event. This suggests that given the presence of unique Goldilocks conditions, the emergence of life may have been somewhat determined.
Survival is determined by a blind logic, so as an alternative to ‘selection’ we might view evolution as the extinction of less adapted lifeforms through a process that has also been called ‘non-random elimination’.
Yet, the logic of evolution actually began before the emergence of life. In the years following the Earth’s formation, a primordial soup of random chemical processes begins to form complex molecules in the oceans. Initially, chance determines which elements are to coalesce into new chemical compounds. Most of these quickly vanish, but among the many random processes a few create more stable by-products than others. As early as this point the logic of non-random elimination starts to work; a logic that, as with the formation of stars and planets, builds on principles of determinism on one hand and chance on the other. The chemicals not sufficiently well adapted to their environment vanish, while those proving robust enough to withstand the iron law of entropy become the basis for further development of increasingly complex molecular combinations. Some of these are the first hydrocarbons, chains of hydrogen and carbon, and simple amino acids, which later become the basis of all subsequent lifeforms. From these developments, the first self-replicating molecule emerges, RNA, which accordingly has been proposed to be the first primitive form of life.20 RNA is eventually replaced by more complex DNA molecules, which prove even more efficient in storing information in the cell and thus favour the emergence of even greater biological complexity.
With the genesis of life, we now for the first time in the known Universe have something that creates new copies of itself. This revolution also entails that the pace of development starts to accelerate – a circumstance that appears at every stage of complexity.
The initial development of complex chemicals is rather slow. But the emergence of the first RNA chains considerably speeds up the pace at which new and ever more complex entities emerge, and with the emergence of DNA and the later blue-green algae that give rise to photosynthesis, evolution on Earth accelerates dramatically. The algae start to produce large quantities of oxygen that gradually alter the Earth’s atmosphere. Since oxygen facilitates greater turnovers of energy, and since higher complexity always requires higher levels of energy, the organisms that adapt to use this new fuel in their metabolism thus attain the possibility of developing even higher levels of complexity. With oxygen, life on Earth henceforth enters a new stage of faster-paced evolution than ever before.
single-cell organisms start to lump together into multicellular organisms around 1.7 billion years ago.
around a billion years ago when more advanced organisms that reproduce sexually through combining parts of their DNA from two different hosts start to emerge. In this way there is much greater variation in the offspring, of which some may prove exceedingly favourable. This development really speeds up evolution. Instead of ‘waiting’ for random occurrences to lead to better adapted organisms, sexual reproduction allows for the most suitable properties from various individuals to be ‘chosen’ by the law of natural selection, and the least suitable to be non-randomly eliminated. Following the emergence of sexually reproducing multicellular organisms, the next revolution occurs around 450 million years ago when life moves up on land; initially plants, followed by animals a little later. The first lungfish evolve with time into enormous lizards, and dinosaurs dominate the surface of the planet for millions of years until they are eradicated in a major natural catastrophe 65 million years ago.
Small but hardy organisms, sufficiently adapted to survive the harsh conditions prevailing after the catastrophe, take over the niches handed down to them and quickly spread across the globe. One such group of species are the mammals. After the extinction of the dinosaurs, these small creatures are suddenly able to evolve into larger and more complex species, of which one of these eventually evolves into us, Homo sapiens.
New highlights added January 5th, 2021 at 6:09 AM
Even the worm registers its environment. With the aid of a nerve centre with a few hundred neurons it reacts to the environment accordingly. A neuron, or nerve cell, is the nervous system’s most basic unit and is responsible for the reception and transmission of nerve impulses. The nerve signal consists of an electrical impulse that runs through a nerve cell which is relayed to the next. We may call the accumulation of these nerve signals a form of proto-consciousness; a consciousness consisting of sensory impressions, attention and motivation.
The reptile brain governs the motor control of the body and processes sensory impressions such as sight, smell, taste and hearing. The lizard, with its reptile brain, has an active sense that can focus its attention and register the outside world. In this directed attention, the lizard can register the part of its surroundings that calls it to attention, only then to react, for example attack or flee from a threat, something the worm cannot do. It is, however, the case of an instinctive, pre-programmed reaction, not a conscious choice.
limbic system, which can be found in mammals and birds. They still have a reptile brain, which holds the most basic life-sustaining parts, but the limbic system that encloses it should be understood as something new, not just a larger reptile brain. The limbic system gives rise to emotions, such as fear, excitement and anger, which further regulate the organism’s behaviour. The limbic system thereby complements the reptile brain’s basic life-sustaining impulses. Because of the limbic system’s introduction of these completely new phenomena, emotions, which cannot be derived from the earlier impulses, it is possible to talk about the limbic system as an emergent phenomenon that constitutes yet another developmental step in terms of complexity.
Mammals also have advanced memory functions thanks to additional neurons that form the area of the brain called the cortex. With this, they can remember and retain images in their mind. For instance, even if the cat a dog is chasing disappears around a corner, the dog is capable of continuing the chase. It has a preserved image, a memory, of the cat that has disappeared from view. Mammals can with these memory functions also learn new things about their environment, for example where food usually can be found, in contrast to more primitive species that exclusively have to rely on senses such as smell and taste in order to find food in a constant here and now.
The cortex is the basis for a first inner world, which we can see in the way mammals play, dream and have inner motivations.
Our inner reality is something that is extremely difficult to approach in scientific terms. The philosopher Ernest Nagel has in his famous paper ‘What Is It Like to Be a Bat?’ proposed that consciousness is what it is to be something, what it feels like to be a conscious creature.
If we use the definition of consciousness as that of having experiences, we may infer from empirical observations what is experienced in the inner world of other organisms. By looking at the evolution of cognition, we can investigate how organic entities on various stages of complexity react to their environment and appear to process data. From such inquiries we may conclude that the behaviour of organic cells seems to express a kind of pre-conscious form of protoplasmic irritability and that plants react to sunlight and soil compositions in ways that indicate the presence of some sort of rudimentary sensation. The behaviour of reptiles shows that they probably have a form of sophisticated perception, and mammals appear as if they (as in the above example of a dog chasing a cat) have a capacity to form mental images in their minds. However, all these properties are inner qualities that objective science, by definition, cannot say anything about. From our empirical methods we can only observe that living creatures react in accordance with certain patterns. What it is actually like to be the given entity we observe, however, what it is like to have that sensation of irritability, impulse or feeling, this we can only deduce from the experience of having similar sensations ourselves.
Being the most complex creature on Earth, and being the result of several stages of transcendence from all those preceding, less complex stages of biological evolution, we have on each stage not only transcended those earlier stages, but also included what came before (evident in the similar physical structures in human and animal brains). Accordingly, we find within ourselves traces of all these preceding inner worlds and have good reasons to conclude that our impulses for aggression, sex and hunger must be similar to those in reptiles, and that the emotional affection we can feel towards others may not be that different to what a complex mammal may experience towards its offspring. After all, given the similarities in our nervous systems, the sensation of pain we all experience from physical harm probably does not differ that much from animals.
Five to six million years ago, apes swing from tree to tree in the forests of Africa, eat fruits and plants and sleep protected from predators in the tree crowns. Life in the trees requires good coordination between hands for gripping and stereoscopic vision in order to navigate the three-dimensional environment. This in turn requires large brains and generates an evolutionary pressure towards increasingly larger and more complex brains. Hands with opposable thumbs will later prove extremely well adapted for manipulating objects and creating tools.
Within the course of a few million years, the formation of an enormous rift valley through the African continent results in new mountain ranges and great rivers that cut off the ape populations from each other. The climate changes drastically in the eastern part, where the forest recedes and leaves space for dry savannahs. The eastern ape populations quickly adapt for survival in this inhospitable environment. Now they cannot live in the trees and eat fruit as their cousins in the west, but are forced down onto the ground to wander long stretches in search of food. This accelerates the development of a new species of apes and creates evolutionary pressures to favour individuals who are able to move on two legs which is more energy efficient. This feature may also have protected the first hominids from heat and predators as they could no longer find shade or seek refuge in the trees. Upright walking reduces the surface of the body that is exposed to direct sunlight and having a field of vision at a higher elevation helps detect predators at longer distances. But most importantly, perhaps, standing on two legs means that their hands become free for toolmaking and the domestication of fire.
Meat is more energy- dense than plants and enables the development of smaller stomachs, as great amounts of plant material are no longer necessary for survival.
stomachs are also necessary in order to better walk upright and require less energy so that even more fuel can be released to the brain. Increased social coordination of the hunt also requires larger brains
so in a positive spiral of constantly smaller stomachs, better upright walking, growing brains and improved hunting skills, these creatures are rapidly evolving into something we might call humans.
In these pre-humans there is rage, fear and joy; feelings that we share with other mammals. But the pre-human brain develops even further in the more emotively specialised cerebral hemisphere. With this, we get the ability to entertain more advanced inner conceptions separate from the current environment. We gain a basic understanding of cause-and-effect, we learn new things by imitating others, and use trial and error to learn from our mistakes. In addition, the inner conception of the world enables a mental ‘trial’ of potential actions, and having more exact and detailed models of reality favours survival.
The Brains of Pre-humans Two and a half million years ago, a period of ice ages, frenetically coming and going, subjects our species to manifold privations such as chill and drought. As a consequence of these insecure and highly unstable conditions, evolution powers ahead with full force and only the best-adapted survive. Individuals with more developed cognitive abilities gain crucial advantages vis-à-vis others less fortunate, and the evolution of more complex brains accelerates further.
The brain measures around 600 cm3 and a third stage in the evolution of the brain can be said to have begun. The cerebral cortex has now been developed and we have thus acquired greater capacity for memory, language and attention. The two hemispheres of the brain increasingly divide up tasks between them and we become ever more adept at producing tools with the aid of our improved motor skills and our minds’ greater capacity for strategic thinking.
The prefrontal cortex inherited from apes, which expands most significantly throughout human evolution, is the part of the brain associated with tool making.
Tool use seems to have caused selective pressures for larger brains and improved eye-brain-hand coordination. Behavioural changes may have started a process of positive feedback where the larger-brained, better-coordinated individuals increase their chances of survival by acquiring better tool skills, which at the same time, through a mechanism known as sexual selection, impel females to mate with the most skilled males.
Another such feedback loop is sociability. The capacity to manage many social relations likewise requires larger brains. Bigger-brained hominids may have had better social skills, more sexual partners and higher status in the social hierarchy. In addition, they were probably also better at handling the political relations of the group, solving conflicts, gaining access to food, etc. These are all capabilities that increase the chances of having more offspring. Since larger brains and better social skills are both linked to the capacity for language skills, this may even have created a third evolutionary feedback loop towards more sophisticated forms of language.
Around 1.8 million years ago, our brain’s size has grown to around 800 cm3
there is yet another development of our social skills that is just as crucial, one that can be said to be more ‘in depth’ in our understanding of other human beings. Not only do we see a greater awareness of the ‘breadth’ of human society, with further understanding of the intricate social constellations of the group, but a greater awareness of its ‘depth’ occurs as well.
Empathy thereby becomes a distinct human ability of crucial importance for our species’ further evolution.
For survival, it is namely more important to understand what goes on in other people’s minds than in our own. Thus, as a species, we actually become conscious of others long before we become self-conscious.
A new sub-branch of hominids, Homo sapiens, turns up in Africa around 200,000 years ago. The brain in Homo sapiens is now around 1,400 cm3 and consists of upwards of 100 billion neurons. At this stage of development, we now have creatures who are physically quite similar to contemporary humans.
All later development can be said to belong to a completely new regime, that of culture, a developmental step in complexity beyond the biological. It is a new stage of complexity that, just like biology, will accelerate the pace of evolution to a hitherto unseen speed, and introduce completely new rules.
With the emergence of self-awareness, we take a first step out of the total symbiosis with nature and realise in a totally new way that we exist as individual persons. Leaving the symbiosis with nature is expressed in the Bible as the expulsion from Paradise.
We realise that we are naked since we have become conscious of ourselves, and we can feel shame and guilt. Self-awareness is an emergent phenomenon that cannot be reduced to its earlier components; it is not an advanced type of impulse, and neither is it merely a new kind of emotion. With this development, evolution creates something completely new: a creature that is aware of itself and that can reason about its existence.
Complexity is arguably related to freedom. A defining feature of higher levels of complexity is, as mentioned in the Introduction, the way higher-stage structures limit the autonomy, the freedom, of their lower-level constituents.