Cultural evolution entails (creativity entails (concept combination entails quantum structure))

The theory of natural selection cannot describe how early life evolved, in part because acquired characteristics are passed on through horizontal exchange. It has been proposed that culture, like life, began with the emergence of autopoietic form, thus its evolution too cannot be described by natural selection. The evolution of autopoietic form can be described using a framework referred to as Context-driven Actualization of Potential (CAP), which grew out of a generalization of the formalisms of quantum mechanics, and encompasses nondeterministic as well as deterministic change of state. The autopoietic structure that evolves through culture is the mind, or more accurately the conceptual network that yields an individual's internal model of the world. A branch of CAP research referred to as the state-context-property (SCOP) formalism provides a mathematical framework for reconciling the stability of conceptual structure with its susceptibility to context-driven change. The combination of two or more concepts (an extreme case of contextual influence), as occurs in insight, is modeled as a state of entanglement. Theoretical and empirical findings are presented that challenge assumptions underlying virtually all of cognitive science, such as the notion of spreading activation and the assumption that cognitive processes can be described with a Kolmogorovian probability model

Cultural Evolution as Distributed Computation

The speed and transformative power of human cultural evolution is evident from the change it has wrought on our planet. This chapter proposes a human computation program aimed at (1) distinguishing algorithmic from non-algorithmic components of cultural evolution, (2) computationally modeling the algorithmic components, and amassing human solutions to the non-algorithmic (generally, creative) components, and (3) combining them to develop human-machine hybrids with previously unforeseen computational power that can be used to solve real problems. Drawing on recent insights into the origins of evolutionary processes from biology and complexity theory, human minds are modeled as self-organizing, interacting, autopoietic networks that evolve through a Lamarckian (non-Darwinian) process of communal exchange. Existing computational models as well as directions for future research are discussed.Comment: 13 pages Gabora, L. (2013). Cultural evolution as distributed human computation. In P. Michelucci (Ed.) Handbook of Human Computation. Berlin: Springe

Entanglement of Conceptual Entities in Quantum Model Theory (QMod)

We have recently elaborated 'Quantum Model Theory' (QMod) to model situations where the quantum effects of contextuality, interference, superposition, entanglement and emergence, appear without the entities giving rise to these situations having necessarily to be of microscopic nature. We have shown that QMod models without introducing linearity for the set of the states. In this paper we prove that QMod, although not using linearity for the state space, provides a method of identification for entangled states and an intuitive explanation for their occurrence. We illustrate this method for entanglement identification with concrete examples

The Sociology of Creativity: A Sociological Systems Framework to Identify and Explain Social Mechanisms of Creativity and Innovative Developments

Creativity is a universal activity, essential in an evolutionary perspective, to adaptation and sustainability. This manuscript on the sociology of creativity has three purposes: (1) to develop the argument that key factors in creative activity are socially based and developed; hence, sociology can contribute significantly to understanding and explaining human creativity; (2) to present a systems approach which enables us to link in a systematic and coherent way the disparate social factors and mechanisms that are involved in creative activity and to describe and explain creativity; (3) to illustrate a sociological systems theory’s (Actor-Systems-Dynamics) conceptualization of multiple interrelated institutional, cultural, and interaction factors and mechanisms and their role in creativity and innovative development with respect to diverse empirical bases. The approach shares with key psychological theory approaches in the area consideration of key concepts such as “persons”, “processes”, “products”, and “places “but extends these to include additional factors such as social structures and resources, social powers, selection mechanisms (acceptance or rejection), and institutionalization. Moreover, the complex of factors identified and analyzed are specified in this article in sociological terms. The resulting model enables one to address and answer key questions relating to creative actions and innovative developments such as “who” is involved, “why” are they driving these activities, “what” are they doing or trying to do concretely, “how”, “where”, and “when” in diverse instances/illustrations which illuminate human creativity. The general model enables us to distinguish between and analyze processes of creative origination/formation, on the one hand, and processes of institutional acceptance and realization, on the other hand. Innovation in these distinct phases is distinguished analytically. It formulates a phase structure model in which the phases of origination and innovation generally and the phases of acceptance and institutionalization are identified and analyzed. Finally, the work introduces and applies key concepts such as rules and rule regimes -- norms, roles, institutions, and cultural formations -- in general, social structure. Moreover, it identifies socially based creativity production functions and particular cognitive and action mechanisms as features of rule regimes that generate innovations. Applications and illustrations in the article are diverse ranging from, for instance: (i) “the lone coyote” who exercises creativity based on absorbing a field of knowledge, concepts, challenges, problems, solution strategies, creativity production functions or programs (and who is likely to be in contact with libraries, relevant journals and may be directly or indirectly in contact with a network of others); (ii) groups in their particular fields operating greenhouse driving problem-solving and creative activities – both self-organizing groups as well as groups established by external powers (whether a private company, a government, or a non-government organization or movement); (iii) or entire societies undergoing transformations and radical development as in the industrial and later revolutions. The article introduces and applies a model stressing the socio-cultural and political embeddedness of agents, either as individuals or groups, in their creative activities and innovative productions. The agents are socialized agents, carriers of socio-cultural knowledge, including some of the knowledge essential to engage in creative processes in a particular domain or field. In their creativity, agents manipulate symbols, rules, technologies, and materials that are socially derived and developed. Their motivation for doing what they do derives in part from their social roles and positions, in part in response to the incentives and opportunities – many socially constructed – shaping their interaction situations and domains. Their capabilities including their social powers derive from the culturally and institutional frameworks in which they are embedded. In carrying out their actions, agents mobilize resources through the institutions and networks of which they are a part. As social agents, they are carriers of constructed values and motives and culturally established ideas, strategies, and practices (e.g., “a cultural tool kit.”) Their creative actions are social actions, given meanings in cultural and institutional terms in the domains or fields in which they engage in their activities. Power considerations are part and parcel of the analyses, for instance the role of the state as well as private interests and social movements in facilitating and/or constraining innovations and creative developments in society. In the perspective presented here, generally speaking, creativity can be consistently and systematically considered to a great extent as social, cultural, institutional and material rather than largely psychological or biological

The nature of the artificial: augmenting Negrottian artificiality with neo-Whiteheadian naturality

In this paper, a theory of the artificial recently proposed by Negrotti (1999a, 1999b, 2001a, 2001b) is critically examined. First, a brief overview of this theory is presented. It is then argued that despite the merits of this scheme, principal of which are the self-evident simplicity of its conceptual foundations, its internal consistency (or theoretical coherence), and its possible overall correctness, it is, nonetheless, incomplete. This incompleteness is shown to arise as a direct consequence of the explicit affirmation of a number of problematic metaphysical assumptions about the nature (as essence or what-ness) of nature (as 'other' to the artificial). An attempt at resolving the problem of incompleteness by augmenting the Negrottian theory of artificiality with an alternative conception of nature (as 'other') grounded in Whiteheadian panexperientialism is made. It is shown that although panexperientialism provides an adequate framework for the conceptualisation of naturality, it does not provide a corresponding framework for artificiality, principally because it fails to adequately characterise the nature (as essence) of artifacts. In order to address this latter problem, it is argued that conventional Whiteheadian panexperientialism must be supplemented with a phenomenological account of artificing that describes the ontologically distinct manner in which artifacts come to be. An attempt at formulating such a 'neo-Whiteheadian' account grounded in the metaphysical thinking of Ladrière, Lee, and others is made. In closing, some implications of this alternative Whiteheadian conception of naturality and the attendant neo-Whiteheadian account of artifactuality for the project of "strong" artificiality (that is, the attempt to artifactually replicate natural phenomena) are briefly considered

Complexity and Philosophy

The science of complexity is based on a new way of thinking that stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy underlying Newtonian science, which is based on reductionism, determinism, and objective knowledge. This paper reviews the historical development of this new world view, focusing on its philosophical foundations. Determinism was challenged by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Systems theory replaced reductionism by a scientifically based holism. Cybernetics and postmodern social science showed that knowledge is intrinsically subjective. These developments are being integrated under the header of “complexity science”. Its central paradigm is the multi-agent system. Agents are intrinsically subjective and uncertain about their environment and future, but out of their local interactions, a global organization emerges. Although different philosophers, and in particular the postmodernists, have voiced similar ideas, the paradigm of complexity still needs to be fully assimilated by philosophy. This will throw a new light on old philosophical issues such as relativism, ethics and the role of the subject