|
1
|
- Donald C Mikulecky
- Professor emeritus and Senior Fellow in the VCU Center for the Study=
of
Biological Complexity
- http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/
|
|
2
|
- STUDENT OF NICHOLAS RASHEVS=
KY WHO
WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY PROGRAM AT CHICAGO. WROTE BOOKS ON NEURAL NETWORKS A=
ND
OTHER ASPECTS OF COMPLEXITY IN THE 1930S. WROTE ABOUT COMPLEXITY IN =
THE
1950S.
- AUTHOR OF MANY IMPORTANT BOOKS ON COMPLEXITY INCLUDING ANTICIPATORY
SYSTEMS, LIFE ITSELF, AND ESSAYS ON LIFE ITSELF
|
|
3
|
- COGNITIVE LINGUISTISTICS
- DEVELOPED THE CONCEPT OF FRAMING
- MANY BOOKS
- USES COMPLEXITY THEORY IN A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY
- LOOKS AT CAUSALITY AS A CENTRAL ISSUE IN HIS ANALYSIS OF DIFFEREING =
WOLD
VIEWS
- HIS WORK HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON COMPLEXITY SCIENCE
|
|
4
|
- DON’T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT: KNOW YOUR VALUES AND FRAME THE DEBATE,
CHELSEA GREEN, 2004.
- WHOSE FREEDOM: THE BATTLE OVER AMERICA’S MOST IMPORTANT IDEA, FARRAR,STRAUS AND GIROUX, 2006
|
|
5
|
- BASED ON THE WORK OF GEORGE LAKOFF
- COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS
- FRAMES ARE THE MENTAL STRUC=
TURES
THAT SHAPE THE WAY WE SEE T=
HE
WORLD
- FACTS, DATA, MODELS, ETC. ONLY HAVE MEANING IN A CONTEXT
- LEADS US TO A SCIENTIFIC APPLICATION OF FRAMING : ROSEN’S THEORY OF
COMPLEXITY
|
|
6
|
- ALLOWS US TO ASSIGN MEANING TO THE WORLD AROUND US
- STANDS FOR OUR THINKING PROCESS
- CAUSALITY IN THE NATURAL SYSTEM IS DEALT WITH THROUGH IMPLICATION IN=
A
FORMAL SYSTEM
- THERE IS AN ENCODING OF THE NATURAL SYSTEM INTO THE FORMAL SYSTEM AN=
D A
DECODING BACK
- WHEN IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER WE HAVE A MODEL
|
|
7
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9
|
|
|
10
|
- THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT ENCODING AND/OR
DECODING
- THEREFORE MODELING WILL ALWAYS BE AN ART
- ONLY IN THE NEWTONIAN PARADIGM DOES THE FORMAL SYSTEM BECOME THE NAT=
URAL
SYSTEM (ENCODING AND DECODING ARE AUTOMATIC) AND ALL THAT IS LEFT TO=
DO
IS TO MEASURE THINGS
|
|
11
|
- THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US HOW TO ENCODE AND DEC=
ODE.
(MODELING IS AN ART!)
- THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US WHEN THE MODEL WORKS,
THAT IS A JUDGEMENT CALL EVEN IF OTHER FORMALISMS ARE ENLISTED TO HE=
LP
(FOR EXAMPLE: STATISTICS)
- MODELS EXIST IN A CONTEXT: A FRAME
|
|
12
|
- WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF “BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS “IN”)
- WE DEVELOPED THE MYTH OF “OBJECTIVITY”
|
|
13
|
- Rather than change methods we have
the changed names for what we do
- The consequences are significant
- It is impossible for you to believe what is being taught in this lec=
ture
and to then simply add it to your repertoire
- The reason is that in order to see the world in a new way you have to
step out of the traditional frame and into a new one. Once done, you can never go back=
. The ability to reframe a questio=
n is
the basis for change and broadening of ideas.
|
|
14
|
|
|
15
|
|
|
16
|
- WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING
|
|
17
|
- THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL SYSTEM” TO MODEL IT
(THERE IS NO “UNIVERSAL MODEL”)
|
|
18
|
- The map is not the territory
- An equation is just an equation without interpretation
- This means we use formalisms in a context
- This context dependence also exists in nature
- This is one reason why there can never be a largest model
|
|
19
|
- REDUCTIONISM DID SERIOUS DAMAGE TO THERMODYNAMICS
- THERMODYNAMICS IS MORE IN HARMONY WITH TOPOLOGICAL MATHEMATICS THAN =
IT
IS WITH ANALYTICAL MATHEMATICS
- THUS TOPOLOGY AND NOT MOLECULAR STATISTICS IS THE FUNDAMENTAL TOOL
|
|
20
|
- A process happens in a context
- The process usually changes that context
- If the context changes the process usually changes as a result.
- Living systems are replete with examples of this
|
|
21
|
|
|
22
|
|
|
23
|
- IT HAS BEEN TRIED
- IT FAILED
- THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO “GO AROUND” IT – THAT IS TO IGNORE CASES WHERE=
IT
POPS UP
- WHAT IF IT IS VERY COMMON?
|
|
24
|
- TOO MANY DEFINITIONS, SOME CONFLICTING
- OFTEN INTERCHANGED WITH “COMPLICATED”
- HAS A REAL MEANING BUT AFTER THE QUESTION IS REFRAMED
- THAT MEANING ITSELF IS COMPLEX(THIS IS SELF-REFERENTIAL: HOW CAN WE
DEFINE “COMPLEX” USING “COMPLEX”?)
|
|
25
|
- Complexity is the property =
of a
real world system that is manifest in the inability of any one forma=
lism
being adequate to capture all its properties. It requires that we fi=
nd
distinctly different ways of interacting with systems. Distinctly
different in
- the sense that when we =
make
successful models, the formal systems needed to describe each distin=
ct
aspect are NOT
- derivable from each oth=
er
|
|
26
|
|
|
27
|
- COMPLEX
- NO LARGEST MODEL
- WHOLE MORE THAN SUM OF PARTS
- CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH AND INTERTWINED
- GENERIC
- ANALYTIC ¹ SYNTHETIC
- NON-FRAGMENTABLE
- NON-COMPUTABLE
- REAL WORLD
- SIMPLE
- LARGEST MODEL
- WHOLE IS SUM OF PARTS
- CAUSAL RELATIONS DISTINCT
- N0N-GENERIC
- ANALYTIC =3D SYNTHETIC
- FRAGMENTABLE
- COMPUTABLE
- FORMAL SYSTEM
|
|
28
|
- DON’T THINK OF AN ELEPHANT
- IMPOSSIBILITY OF AVOIDING THE FRAME
- IN SCIENCE THE DOMINANT FRAME IS REDUCTIONISM AND THE ASSOCIATED
MECHANICAL THINKING
- THE DOMINANT MODERN MANIFESTATIONS INCLUDE MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND
NONLINEAR DYNAMICS
|
|
29
|
- WHAT IS LIFE (SCHROEDINGER)?
- WHY IS AN ORGANISM DIFFERENT FROM A MACHINE?
|
|
30
|
- DIRECT CAUSATION (REDUCTIONISM)
- SYSTEMIC CAUSATION (COMPLEX=
ITY)
|
|
31
|
- DIRECT CAUSALITY IS THE SIMPLEST KIND
- SINGLE AGENT EXERTS FORCE ON SOMETHING AND IT CHANGES OR MOVES AS A
RESULT
- NO INTERMEDIATE CAUSE
- NO MULTIPLE AGENTS
|
|
32
|
- FOCUS ON THE ORGANIZATION
- DEVELOP A SET OF FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS WHICH CAPTURE THAT ORGANIZATI=
ON
- UTILIZE THE CAUSAL RELATIONS RESULTING FROM ANSWERING “WHY?”
|
|
33
|
- MUST POSSESS ENOUGH IDENTITY TO BE CONSIDERED A “THING”
- MUST BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES FROM LARGER SYSTEMS TO WHICH IT M=
AY
BELONG
- ITS FORMAL IMAGE IS A MAPPING f: A ----->=
B
- THIS INTRODUCES A NEW KIND OF “DYNAMICS” : RELATIONAL
|
|
34
|
- MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF
- EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER
- FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT
- FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE
|
|
35
|
- INVOLVES MAPPINGS
- METABOLISM IS f: A à B
- A REPRESENTS METABOLITES WHICH CAN ALSO EXCHANGE WITH THE ENVIRONMEN=
T
- B REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF METABOLISM
- f IS A MAPPING FROM A TO B
- MULTIPLE AND INTERMEDIATE CAUSES ARE MANDITORY
|
|
36
|
- BASED ON INPUT/OUTPUT REPRESENTATIONS OF SYSTEMS
- MORE ABSTRACT
- ALLOW CAUSALITY TO BE REPRESENTED
- LEAD TO NEW INFORMATION
- ARE BASED ON RECOGNITION THAT BUILDING UP AND TEARING DOWN ARE PART =
OF
THE LIFE PROCESS
|
|
37
|
- NO STRUCTURE IS PERMANENT
- ADAPTABILITY AND CHANGE INHERENT
- NEEDS SPECIAL TYPE OF ORGANIZATION
- IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND HEALING
|
|
38
|
- A IS THE MATERIAL CAUSE OF B (DOTTED ARROW)
- f IS THE EFFICIENT CAUSE OF B
- OTHER COMPONENTS FOR REPAIR AND REPLICATION COME IN BECAUSE THESE
COMPONENTS HAVE A FINITE LIFETIME: CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM OR
“TURNOVER”
|
|
39
|
|
|
40
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42
|
|
|
43
|
- ARE COMPLEX SYSTEMS
- ARE CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE
- ARE AUTOPOIETIC UNITIES
|
|
44
|
- WE CAN APPLY THESE IDEAS TO HUMAN BEHAVIOR
- WE HAVE ALREADY USED THESE IDEAS TO EXAMINE THE FRAMING OF THE
SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE BY REDUCTIONISTS
- WE CAN GO FURTHER AND IF WE DO THE RESULTS ARE VERY STRIKING
|
|
45
|
- HE FINDS THAT RADICAL CONSERVATIVES TEND TO RELY ONLY ON DIRECT
CAUSALITY
- ON THE OTHER HAND PROGRESSIVES TEND TO RELY ON SYSTEMIC CAUSALITY
- HE TIES THIS IN WITH A MODEL OF THE COGNITIVE BEHAVIOR OF BOTH GROUP=
S
|
|
46
|
- THE STRICT FATHER FAMILY IS THE MODEL FOR RADICAL CONSERVATIVE BEHAV=
IOR
- THYE NURTURING MOTHER FAMILY IS THE MODEL FOR PROGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
- THE TWO MODELS RESULT IN VERY DIFFERENT WORLD VIEWS AND EVEN THE
DEFINITION OF WORDS LIKE “FREEDOM” ARE VERY DIFFERENT IN THE TWO
WORLDVIEWS
|
|
47
|
|
|
48
|
- ROSEN SHOWED THAT REDUCTIONIST/MECHANIST THINKING RESULTED IN THE NE=
ED
FOR A GOD (MACHINES NEED AN INTELLEGENT DESIGNER
- COMPLEXITY THEORY SHOWS THAT ORGANISMS ARE DIFFERENT FROM MACHINES A=
ND
CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE (NO NEED FOR ANY OUTSIDE CAUSE)
|
|
49
|
- INTELLEGENT DESIGN IS THE ONLY USE OF ANY IDEA FROM COMPLEXITY AND I=
T IS
MISUSED (IRREDUCEABLE COMPLEXITY IMPLIES AN INTELLEGENT DESIGNER)
- DIRECT CAUSATION HAS ALMOST NO USE IN EVOLUTIONARY THEORY
- DIRECT CAUSATION HAS ALMOST NO USE IN CLIMATOLOGY
- SYSTEMIC CAUSALITY IS DISMISSED BY PROPONENTS OD DIRECT CAUSALITY
- REAL COMPLEX SYSTEMS REQUIRE SYSTEMIC CAUSATION AND CAN NOT BE EXPLA=
INED
USING DIRECT CAUSATION UNLESS A DIETY OR SOME OTHER SUERNATURAL AGEN=
T IS
INVOKED
|
|
50
|
- SUCH A THEORY HAS TO REFRAME THE QUESTION FRAMED BY REDUCTIONISTS IN
TERMS OF DIRECT CAUSATION
- IT MUST NOT PUT FORTH A SINGLE, LARGEST MODEL IF IT IS TO GO BEYOND =
THE
MISTAKES SO DEEPLY ENTRENCHED BY REDUCTIONISM
- IT MUST BE BUILT ON CONCEPTS LIKE SYSTEMIC CAUSALITY, SELF REFERENCE,
CONTEXT DEPENDENCE, AND THE OTHER ASPECTS OF COMPLEXITY THEORY PRESE=
NTED
BY LAKOFF AND ROSEN
|
|
51
|
- THIS BOOK IS A GOOD INTRODUCTION TO HOW THERMODYNAMIC REASONING CAN
BREAK OUT OF ITS REDUCTIONIST PRISON AND BEGIN TO BE USED IN THE STU=
DY
OF COMPLEXITY SCIENCE
- IT ALSO GIVES INSIGHTS INTO MY ROLE IN THIS
|
![](3D"master05_image001.gif")
![](3D"master05_image002.gif")
![](3D"master05_image003.gif")
![](3D"master04_image004.gif")
![](3D"master04_image005.gif")
![](3D"slide0023_image006.gif")
![](3D"slide0024_image007.gif")
![](3D"slide0024_image008.gif")
![](3D"slide0024_image009.gif")
![](3D"slide0024_image010.gif")
![3DAND](3D"slide0024_image011.gif")
![](3D"slide0025_image012.gif")
![](3D"slide0030_image013.gif")
![](3D"slide0031_image014.gif")
![3D"DNA
"](3D"slide0036_image015.gif")
![3DENZYMES](3D"slide0036_image017.gif")
![3DPROTEINS](3D"slide0036_image018.gif")
![](3D"slide0036_image019.gif")
![](3D"slide0036_image020.gif")
![](3D"slide0036_image021.gif")
![](3D"slide0036_image022.gif")
![](3D"slide0036_image023.gif")
![](3D"slide0037_image024.gif")
![](3D"slide0013_image025.gif")
![](3D"slide0014_image026.gif")
![](3D"slide0015_image027.gif")
![](3D"slide0016_image028.gif")
![](3D"notes_flag.gif")
No=
tes![](3D"buttons.gif")
