1
|
- Donald C. Mikulecky
- Professor Emeritus of Physiology and Senior Fellow in the VCU Center=
for
the Study of Biological complexity
|
2
|
- We want to understand the world we live in.
- To do this, consciously or unconsciously, we make models.
|
3
|
- Models are made to understand the world around us, either consciousl=
y or
unconsciously
- Every human endeavor involves models, science religion, politics and
others
- Unconsious models are replete
- Science is no exception
|
4
|
|
5
|
- 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
|
6
|
|
7
|
|
8
|
|
9
|
- 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
|
10
|
- 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
|
11
|
- WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF “BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS “IN”)
- WE DEVELOPED THE MYTH OF “OBJECTIVITY”
|
12
|
- 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.
|
13
|
|
14
|
|
15
|
- WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING
|
16
|
- THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL SYSTEM” TO MODEL IT
(THERE IS NO “UNIVERSAL MODEL”)
|
17
|
- 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
|
18
|
|
19
|
|
20
|
- 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?
|
21
|
- 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”?)
|
22
|
- 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
|
23
|
|
24
|
- COMPLEX
- NO LARGEST MODEL
- WHOLE MORE THAN SUM OF PARTS
- CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH AND INTERTWINED
- GENERIC
- ANALYTIC ¹ SYNTHETIC=
font>
- 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
|
25
|
- 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
|
26
|
- WHAT IS LIFE (SCHROEDINGER)?
- WHY IS AN ORGANISM DIFFERENT FROM A MACHINE?
|
27
|
- DIRECT CAUSATION (REDUCTIONISM)
- SYSTEMIC CAUSATION (COMPLEX=
ITY)
|
28
|
- 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
|
29
|
- FOCUS ON THE ORGANIZATION
- DEVELOP A SET OF FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS WHICH CAPTURE THAT ORGANIZATI=
ON
- UTILIZE THE CAUSAL RELATIONS RESULTING FROM ANSWERING “WHY?”
|
30
|
- 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
|
31
|
- MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF
- EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER
- FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT
- FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE
|
32
|
- 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
|
33
|
- 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
|
34
|
- 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”
|
35
|
|
36
|
- ARE COMPLEX SYSTEMS
- ARE CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE
- ARE AUTOPOIETIC UNITIES
|
37
|
- 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
|
38
|
- 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
|
39
|
- THE STRICT FATHER FAMILY IS THE MODEL FOR RADICAL CONSERVATIVE BEHAV=
IOR
- THE 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
|
40
|
|
41
|
- 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)
|
42
|
- 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 OF 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
|
43
|
- 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
|