holism vs. reductionism, again

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

So what do we really mean when we say that systems biology is holistic?
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/4/22

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Sarbajit Roy (testing)]

Hi

To digress considerably from your query, I find it interesting that
the author concludes his paper with the following reference to
(Robert) Rosen and "relatively easy experiments"

"If Darwinian reductionism really does transcend the old
reductionist-holist dichotomy, systems biology would be the ideal
place to demonstrate it. Likewise, we are now in a position to test
Rosen’s theories about noncomputable network structures, and to search
for real biological examples of them. Just as experimental programmes
were essential to the victories of mechanism in the 1910s and
neo-Darwinism in the 1930s, only those theories that immediately
suggest relatively easy experiments will be winners."

Biological systems can be treated holistically, or empirically or
reductionistically - the
"dichotomy" is superficial. Unfortunately, in my view, and apparently
in Rosen's too - the modern trend towards reductionism in (say)
biology has resulted in an explosion of information / data
(masquerading as science) generated from "easy experiments" which
focus on the.perceivable (light matter) and ignores the dark matter
(or vitalism) which cannot be fully detected by us as yet.

After the storm the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species set off
in 1859 especially in religious circles, a religious organization in
Bengal (India) initiated in 1860 a program of experiments using
electromagnetic particles on "simple" life forms. Just today
[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8593780.stm] CERN has achieved a
significant step forward towards rediscovering the "God particle"
(Higgs Boson- named in part after S.N Bose a part of that extended
research program).

Considering that in the latter 19th century remarkable biological
transformations / states (levitation, biological transmutation) were
achieved with incredibly primitive and cheap equipment, it will be
really interesting to speculate by when the 10 billion dollar CERN
Hadron collider finally achieves in folding life from the "dark side"
- the immortal "positronic brain" (??).
[http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-02/darpas-mad-vision-create-kill-switches-inside-immortal-synthetic-organisms]

On 3/30/10, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> So what do we really mean when we say that systems biology is holistic?
> http://www.biomedcentral.com/1752-0509/4/22
>
> --
> glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-30 12:15 PM:

>
> Derek Gatherer wrote:
>> "If Darwinian reductionism really does transcend the old
>> reductionist-holist dichotomy, systems biology would be the ideal
>> place to demonstrate it. Likewise, we are now in a position to test
>> Rosen’s theories about noncomputable network structures, and to search
>> for real biological examples of them. Just as experimental programmes
>> were essential to the victories of mechanism in the 1910s and
>> neo-Darwinism in the 1930s, only those theories that immediately
>> suggest relatively easy experiments will be winners."

That remark about being in a position to test Rosen's theories seems a
bit optimistic to me.

> Biological systems can be treated holistically, or empirically or
> reductionistically - the "dichotomy" is superficial.

I'm not so sure it's superficial.  I would agree that there are ways to
mix and move between them; but whether the "treatment" is superficial or
not depends quite a bit on the practical details of that treatment.
After all, science is about what we _do_, not what we think we know.

> Unfortunately,
> in my view, and apparently in Rosen's too - the modern trend towards
> reductionism in (say) biology has resulted in an explosion of
> information / data (masquerading as science) generated from "easy
> experiments" which focus on the.perceivable (light matter) and
> ignores the dark matter (or vitalism) which cannot be fully detected
> by us as yet.

It sounds like you're saying that the explosion in info/data is not
scientifically useful.  If that's what you're saying, I disagree.  Just
like anything else, I think science is 99% perspiration and 1%
inspiration. (Of course, maybe I think that because I'm a zombie devoid
of inspirational thought. ;-)  All that info/data may not seem useful,
yet; but as long as we can keep track of it (which is easier said than
done), we'll eventually gain the insight to use it.  There's a great
tradition of observationalists just sitting around logging observations
with little inspiration to justify all the logging.  In many ways, these
efforts are more important than that which provides the inspiration.
Anyone can "see" the picture when it's all already laid out in front of
them.  [grin]  It takes serious commitment to drag oneself to the lab
every day and log measurements with little to no long-term vision!

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Sarbajit Roy (testing)]

Confining ourselves within the scientific boundaries you have set <grin>

1) I see so many non-computable biological examples everywhere and everyday,
that I ponder on the politics, compulsions and funding of university driven academia that
result in the exponential explosion of niche "pseudo-science"artificial sub-disciplines (reductionist specialties) .

2) The data that emanates from such a pseudo-science-reductionist model / approach is
usually self serving garbage reminiscent of many blind men feeling up the proverbial elephant.

3)  The "pictures" which emerge from such data, is just a 2D infinitesmally thin perceptive "slice" of an infinitely complex "reality". Perception being a creative process to approximate the infinite universe and determine some "order" (there may actually be none)  in nature's chaos  The action of measuring in itself being a creative process involving classification, discrimination etc

4) Science for me would begin from the recognition that we can never, ever, "know" everything We would progress from this to the acceptance that all "methods" - mechanistic, reductionist, holistic, empirical .. blah--blah .. are only slices from reality, and not necessarily intersecting slices, and to be accorded the degree of recognition which we ordinarily give to images. The way science "solves", an example would be the Archimidean tortoise paradox, is to "skip" a slice of the infinite progression. Hypothetical presumptions requiring variable data (I mean data from variables), or vice-versa, is a dangerous combination.

Now stepping out a little from your boundary.

There are many religions (primitive sciences)  which ban images or idols as representative of God/nature. As an observationalist, I see that some of them seem to be growing at exponential rates comparable to the explosion of  reductionist sub-disciplines. Sciences based on non-formalism (I know this could sound weird at first) actually just empower the few "great minds" rather than secularising scientific advancement to the point where "anybody can cook" (many little fish swimming in their virtual synthetic ponds).

On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:03 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-30 12:15 PM:

>
> Derek Gatherer wrote:
>> "If Darwinian reductionism really does transcend the old
>> reductionist-holist dichotomy, systems biology would be the ideal
>> place to demonstrate it. Likewise, we are now in a position to test
>> Rosen’s theories about noncomputable network structures, and to search
>> for real biological examples of them. Just as experimental programmes
>> were essential to the victories of mechanism in the 1910s and
>> neo-Darwinism in the 1930s, only those theories that immediately
>> suggest relatively easy experiments will be winners."

That remark about being in a position to test Rosen's theories seems a
bit optimistic to me.

> Biological systems can be treated holistically, or empirically or
> reductionistically - the "dichotomy" is superficial.

I'm not so sure it's superficial.  I would agree that there are ways to
mix and move between them; but whether the "treatment" is superficial or
not depends quite a bit on the practical details of that treatment.
After all, science is about what we _do_, not what we think we know.

> Unfortunately,
> in my view, and apparently in Rosen's too - the modern trend towards
> reductionism in (say) biology has resulted in an explosion of
> information / data (masquerading as science) generated from "easy
> experiments" which focus on the.perceivable (light matter) and
> ignores the dark matter (or vitalism) which cannot be fully detected
> by us as yet.

It sounds like you're saying that the explosion in info/data is not
scientifically useful.  If that's what you're saying, I disagree.  Just
like anything else, I think science is 99% perspiration and 1%
inspiration. (Of course, maybe I think that because I'm a zombie devoid
of inspirational thought. ;-)  All that info/data may not seem useful,
yet; but as long as we can keep track of it (which is easier said than
done), we'll eventually gain the insight to use it.  There's a great
tradition of observationalists just sitting around logging observations
with little inspiration to justify all the logging.  In many ways, these
efforts are more important than that which provides the inspiration.
Anyone can "see" the picture when it's all already laid out in front of
them.  [grin]  It takes serious commitment to drag oneself to the lab
every day and log measurements with little to no long-term vision!

--

glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

You make some interesting points; but they're phrased in a way that
makes it difficult to respond.  I'll just tick off a few things I think
stand out.

I don't think it's very easy to justify the assertion that any given
biological system is non-computable.  It seems to me that such a
justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was
non-computable.  And based on the way computability is defined, such a
demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely
beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine.  Hence,
determining which biological systems are computable and which are not
doesn't seem like a simple task to me.

Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors
will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or
trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either.  So, it seems to me that
you're throwing the term "pseudo-science" around a little too loosely.
Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there.  And it can be
difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade
into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to
differentiate.  And none of us has the time to do such delving into
every discipline.  And that's why we rely on social networks and
reputation, perhaps too much at times.  But it's working so far!  In
fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in
your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific
perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements
could only come from mystics and the religious.  No scientist would
stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements.  But
because these "pseudo-science reductionist" methods are _working_, we
can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while
satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that
is reality.

Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism.  While we
_know_ that our "pseudo-science reductionist" methods will ultimately be
proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step
closer to the limit.  And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically
construct theories that repackage all or most of what's come before to
take us a huge leap forward.  But we'll never get there.  And we've
known that for quite some time (at least since the early 1900s).

So, it seems that your (4) is a well accepted position to me, even
amongst many of the scientists fully engaged in what you're calling
"pseudo-science reductionist" methods.

The old saying comes to mind: It may not be perfect; but it's the best
we have!

sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-31 04:13 AM:

> Confining ourselves within the scientific boundaries you have set <grin>
>
> 1) I see so many non-computable biological examples everywhere and everyday,
> that I ponder on the politics, compulsions and funding of university
> driven academia that
> result in the exponential explosion of niche "pseudo-science"artificial
> sub-disciplines (reductionist specialties) .
>
> 2) The data that emanates from such a pseudo-science-reductionist model
> / approach is
> usually self serving garbage reminiscent of many blind men feeling up
> the proverbial elephant.
>
> 3)  The "pictures" which emerge from such data, is just a 2D
> infinitesmally thin perceptive "slice" of an infinitely complex
> "reality". Perception being a creative process to approximate the
> infinite universe and determine some "order" (there may actually be
> none)  in nature's chaos  The action of measuring in itself being a
> creative process involving classification, discrimination etc
>
> 4) Science for me would begin from the recognition that we can never,
> ever, "know" everything We would progress from this to the acceptance
> that all "methods" - mechanistic, reductionist, holistic, empirical ..
> blah--blah .. are only slices from reality, and not necessarily
> intersecting slices, and to be accorded the degree of recognition which
> we ordinarily give to images. The way science "solves", an example would
> be the Archimidean tortoise paradox, is to "skip" a slice of the
> infinite progression. Hypothetical presumptions requiring variable data
> (I mean data from variables), or vice-versa, is a dangerous combination.
>
> Now stepping out a little from your boundary.
>
> There are many religions (primitive sciences)  which ban images or idols
> as representative of God/nature. As an observationalist, I see that some
> of them seem to be growing at exponential rates comparable to the
> explosion of  reductionist sub-disciplines. Sciences based on
> non-formalism (I know this could sound weird at first) actually just
> empower the few "great minds" rather than secularising scientific
> advancement to the point where "anybody can cook" (many little fish
> swimming in their virtual synthetic ponds).

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

Hi Glen,
You did an admirable job of trying to be reasonable. Sarbajit may sound edgy
but in large part he is essentially pointing to something substantive. He
may embellish and inflame but nevertheless your response indicates your own
awareness of the same issues.

What disturbs me is that both of you appear to be idealists. You are
protecting ideals and seem prepared to tolerate some level of corruption.
 Sarbajit feels betrayed and wishes to condemn all that is tainted.

While both of you are distracted the corruption continues undiminished.

The corruption has been there since the very beginning and it is impossible
for an ideal system to be constructed that is immune to corruption.

I have been much possessed by the nature of corruptible systems. I have a
very uncomfortable suspicion that any system capable of evolution is
corruptible and in fact evolution is simply corruption, the positive or
negative attributes are simply the consequence of observer perspective.

The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer
simulations. I propose that all complex systems are corruptible and in fact
it is a property of all systems capable of evolving. No doubt some one else
has already reached the same conclusion so it is not my idea.

If as some would suggest, all complex systems are broken and can function
with damaged subsystems, that then implies that corruption is a tolerable
defect and occasionally beneficial.

As Sarbajit has pointed out, the system has more than a Single Point of
Failure SPOF. And that the identification of SPOF's has inevitably failed to
contend with systemic flaws. In fact focusing on SPOF's may actually create
more in a perverse feed back loop.

A classic example was the discovery that the only way to keep Spitfire
pilots alive in air battles was to get rid of the armour. It gave them speed
and added enormous fear to the pilot's performances. Today such a solution
seems absolutely politically incorrect. Every incremental increase of armour
had led to more deaths.


Science has always been at the mercy of the rich and powerful.

Quoting my Brother, "We are all just mercenaries building Pyramids to
inflate the ego's of the pharaohs.If we weren't good at it they would
dispose of us next time the Crown changes Hands"
 
Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
 
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax
[hidden email]
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: March 31, 2010 1:37 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again


You make some interesting points; but they're phrased in a way that
makes it difficult to respond.  I'll just tick off a few things I think
stand out.

I don't think it's very easy to justify the assertion that any given
biological system is non-computable.  It seems to me that such a
justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was
non-computable.  And based on the way computability is defined, such a
demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely
beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine.  Hence,
determining which biological systems are computable and which are not
doesn't seem like a simple task to me.

Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors
will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or
trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either.  So, it seems to me that
you're throwing the term "pseudo-science" around a little too loosely.
Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there.  And it can be
difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade
into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to
differentiate.  And none of us has the time to do such delving into
every discipline.  And that's why we rely on social networks and
reputation, perhaps too much at times.  But it's working so far!  In
fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in
your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific
perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements
could only come from mystics and the religious.  No scientist would
stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements.  But
because these "pseudo-science reductionist" methods are _working_, we
can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while
satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that
is reality.

Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism.  While we
_know_ that our "pseudo-science reductionist" methods will ultimately be
proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step
closer to the limit.  And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically
construct theories that repackage all or most of what's come before to
take us a huge leap forward.  But we'll never get there.  And we've
known that for quite some time (at least since the early 1900s).

So, it seems that your (4) is a well accepted position to me, even
amongst many of the scientists fully engaged in what you're calling
"pseudo-science reductionist" methods.

The old saying comes to mind: It may not be perfect; but it's the best
we have!

sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-03-31 04:13 AM:
> Confining ourselves within the scientific boundaries you have set <grin>
>
> 1) I see so many non-computable biological examples everywhere and
everyday,

> that I ponder on the politics, compulsions and funding of university
> driven academia that
> result in the exponential explosion of niche "pseudo-science"artificial
> sub-disciplines (reductionist specialties) .
>
> 2) The data that emanates from such a pseudo-science-reductionist model
> / approach is
> usually self serving garbage reminiscent of many blind men feeling up
> the proverbial elephant.
>
> 3)  The "pictures" which emerge from such data, is just a 2D
> infinitesmally thin perceptive "slice" of an infinitely complex
> "reality". Perception being a creative process to approximate the
> infinite universe and determine some "order" (there may actually be
> none)  in nature's chaos  The action of measuring in itself being a
> creative process involving classification, discrimination etc
>
> 4) Science for me would begin from the recognition that we can never,
> ever, "know" everything We would progress from this to the acceptance
> that all "methods" - mechanistic, reductionist, holistic, empirical ..
> blah--blah .. are only slices from reality, and not necessarily
> intersecting slices, and to be accorded the degree of recognition which
> we ordinarily give to images. The way science "solves", an example would
> be the Archimidean tortoise paradox, is to "skip" a slice of the
> infinite progression. Hypothetical presumptions requiring variable data
> (I mean data from variables), or vice-versa, is a dangerous combination.
>
> Now stepping out a little from your boundary.
>
> There are many religions (primitive sciences)  which ban images or idols
> as representative of God/nature. As an observationalist, I see that some
> of them seem to be growing at exponential rates comparable to the
> explosion of  reductionist sub-disciplines. Sciences based on
> non-formalism (I know this could sound weird at first) actually just
> empower the few "great minds" rather than secularising scientific
> advancement to the point where "anybody can cook" (many little fish
> swimming in their virtual synthetic ponds).

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Victoria Hughes]

Allright you all-

Although chiming in without having read the entire thread is probably an error with you all, re Vladimyr's intriguing comments below:

I agree completely, although I do not see this as an uncomfortable conclusion. I see it as less hubristic and more integrated. Must be my lack of sperm.

How can you identify in the moment which aberrations will lead to evolution, versus which aberrations will lead to atrophy? 

Development over enough time changes circumstances so that former criteria are no longer accurate. 

 I've never seen a dynamic evolving system without random noise, errors, unexpected elements, unpredictability, weirdness and the like in there. Responses to these elements are what drive dynamism and evolution.

A pristine corruption-free state is stagnant. Non-complex. No emergence. Problem-solving around 'corruption' is a motivator for growth.

Enjoying this tremendously. Thanks, Vlad-

Victoria

On Mar 31, 2010, at 10:04 PM, Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote

The corruption has been there since the very beginning and it is impossible
for an ideal system to be constructed that is immune to corruption. 

... In fact evolution is simply corruption, the positive or

negative attributes are simply the consequence of observer perspective. 

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Victoria Hughes wrote circa 10-03-31 09:29 PM:
> How can you identify in the moment which aberrations will lead to
> evolution, versus which aberrations will lead to atrophy?

It's not clear to me that there's a difference between "evolution" and
"atrophy".  It seems to me that atrophy is just one of the many
processes that constitute evolution.  Can you clarify the question?

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Eric Charles]

Pardon me, but I couldn't help overhearing (i.e., randomly butting in):

Evolution is never visible 'in the moment', evolution is one type of change over time. This whole thing where you think you can see a new organism born and say "see, look at that, THAT is evolution" is crazy talk... no matter how many times Jean-Luc Picard says it (typically after some one-episode character turns into a pulsating energy butterfly).

Eric

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 12:50 PM, "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> wrote:

Victoria Hughes wrote circa 10-03-31 09:29 PM:
> How can you identify in the moment which aberrations will lead to
> evolution, versus which aberrations will lead to atrophy? 

It's not clear to me that there's a difference between "evolution" and
"atrophy".  It seems to me that atrophy is just one of the many
processes that constitute evolution.  Can you clarify the question?

-- 
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Eric Charles

Professional Student and
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Penn State University
Altoona, PA 16601

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Sarbajit Roy (testing)]

Hi Glen

The reason my points were phrased that way was due to the subject of this thread.
The "vs." paints holism / reductionism as a black vs white "fight", whereas there is a
whole spectrum (and not only of grays) in between (and beyond) not necessarily in
coonflict ("Ebony and Ivory ..").

Just FYI, although I am an engineer (who had no inclination to go into formal research - I briefly drifted into designing some tiny aspects of  "the engines of war") my interest in complexity is almost entirely driven by religion / philosophy; Aristotle, Socrates .. Rashevsky, Rosen, etc. with a focus on transmission of biological information via genetics (and is unconnected to my.work life) .

Returning to my point (1) - ie "non-computable" biological entities, I propose that this further reduces to defining if there is actually a limit to the smallest "bit" of information. For eg, is an electron (or atom) computable? My rough and ready approach to determining which biological systems are computable (and dare I say you would have encountered  some variant of this in your own complexity adventures) abandons mathematical formalisms entirely (if you know the answer why frame the question) dwells on the the "reality" of "Man". For, those who say that "Man" is "real" and a "creation" usually fall within the "computable"camp, whereas those who favour the "unreality" line would say Man is non-computable..

Your point about mystics/seers (possibly / occasionally) being a few hundred years ahead of science, is not too far off the mark. In the context of Zeno's.paradox, extracting even the slightest sliver from the progression would render the infinite computable,. So when we "measure" it affects reality (?) and fools (deludes) us into believing that we have "solved" (computed) the problem. However, I have no problem with such approximate computation ("pseudo-science") if it delivers some practical application (sooner rather than later).

Finally, I wonder why Vladymir perceives us to be idealists who put up with "corruption"

Sarbajit

On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 12:07 AM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:

You make some interesting points; but they're phrased in a way that
makes it difficult to respond.  I'll just tick off a few things I think
stand out.

I don't think it's very easy to justify the assertion that any given
biological system is non-computable.  It seems to me that such a
justification would have to be a _demonstration_ that something was
non-computable.  And based on the way computability is defined, such a
demonstration would consist of showing that the system was definitely
beyond the capabilities of a universal turing machine.  Hence,
determining which biological systems are computable and which are not
doesn't seem like a simple task to me.

Similarly, determining which parts of the data/info glut contributors
will lead to the next leap of insight and which parts are just noise or
trivial doesn't seem so simple to me, either.  So, it seems to me that
you're throwing the term "pseudo-science" around a little too loosely.
Granted, there is a lot of pseudo-science out there.  And it can be
difficult to tell the difference because, invariably, one has to wade
into the jargon and do a non-trivial amount of research to
differentiate.  And none of us has the time to do such delving into
every discipline.  And that's why we rely on social networks and
reputation, perhaps too much at times.  But it's working so far!  In
fact, I would assert that the rather mystical statements you make in
your bullets (3) and (4) can be (somewhat) defended from a scientific
perspective NOW; but that only a few hundred years ago, those statements
could only come from mystics and the religious.  No scientist would
stake his reputation on these sorts of metaphysical statements.  But
because these "pseudo-science reductionist" methods are _working_, we
can begin to build the case that those very same methods, while
satisficing, are not accurate enough to capture the vanishing point that
is reality.

Of course, this is just a restatement of critical rationalism.  While we
_know_ that our "pseudo-science reductionist" methods will ultimately be
proven inadequate, we also know that they each take us a tiny step
closer to the limit.  And to get over Zeno's paradox, we sporadically
construct theories that repackage all or most of what's come before to
take us a huge leap forward.  But we'll never get there.  And we've
known that for quite some time (at least since the early 1900s).

So, it seems that your (4) is a well accepted position to me, even
amongst many of the scientists fully engaged in what you're calling
"pseudo-science reductionist" methods.

The old saying comes to mind: It may not be perfect; but it's the best
we have!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

sarbajit roy wrote circa 10-04-01 12:21 PM:
> The reason my points were phrased that way was due to the subject of
> this thread. The "vs." paints holism / reductionism as a black vs
> white "fight", whereas there is a whole spectrum (and not only of
> grays) in between (and beyond) not necessarily in coonflict ("Ebony
> and Ivory ..").

Right.  I get that.  Don't take my responses as wholly combative. [grin]
 If I didn't agree with you in at least some sense, I wouldn't be able
to responds because there'd be no common ground from which to work.

> Returning to my point (1) - ie "non-computable" biological entities, I
> propose that this further reduces to defining if there is actually a
> limit to the smallest "bit" of information. For eg, is an electron (or
> atom) computable? My rough and ready approach to determining which
> biological systems are computable (and dare I say you would have
> encountered  some variant of this in your own complexity adventures)
> abandons mathematical formalisms entirely (if you know the answer why
> frame the question) dwells on the the "reality" of "Man". For, those who
> say that "Man" is "real" and a "creation" usually fall within the
> "computable"camp, whereas those who favour the "unreality" line would
> say Man is non-computable..

It's not clear to me how you can actually abandon math formalisms but
still use the word "computable".  ("That does not compute!" said in
automaton voce) That word has been hijacked from the English language by
computationalists and mathematicians to mean something very specific.

Perhaps simulable or emulable or something would be better?

> Your point about mystics/seers (possibly / occasionally) being a few
> hundred years ahead of science, is not too far off the mark. In the
> context of Zeno's.paradox, extracting even the slightest sliver from the
> progression would render the infinite computable,. So when we "measure"
> it affects reality (?) and fools (deludes) us into believing that we
> have "solved" (computed) the problem. However, I have no problem with
> such approximate computation ("pseudo-science") if it delivers some
> practical application (sooner rather than later).

But this is the whole point of the scientific method!  It's an
evolutionary approach in the sense that each individual scientist is a
woefully ignorant little cog in the huge machine where the combinatorial
explosive space of possibilities is being explored by life.  That little
cog is allowed, even encouraged, to delude himself if that helps the
bigger machine of life expand the biosphere, including inseminating
other galaxies. ... [ahem]

> Finally, I wonder why Vladymir perceives us to be idealists who put up
> with "corruption"

I believe he was claiming that I am willing to tolerate corruption,
where toleration is an indicator for a crypto-idealist and you were
complaining of it.  But I'll let him speak for himself.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[glen e. p. ropella-2]

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-03-31 09:04 PM:
> The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer
> simulations.

I have to agree with Victoria (and Eric), here.  "Corruption" does not
make sense in the context of evolution.   The sense of the word is that
we have some access to the purpose or intent behind evolution and any
wandering off that purpose or intent is "corruption".  But that's just
not the case.  We have no idea (or there does not exist) a telos to
evolution.  Hence, there can't be any corruption.

When a scientist uses a jargonal or deeply domain specific method (or
even just reformats a set of buzzwords) to get yet another paper
published or secure tenure at a university, they are not corrupt in any
sense.  And I don't actually tolerate such activity, I laud it as a
successful exploit of the system that exists.

Now, when I switch hats from constructive to critic, I make my best
attempts to critically point out to others how some science seems to
have more merit.  I try to help filter out the garbage.  But even the
best minds can be tricked or find themselves baffled (as Bertrand
Russell seems to have been by Goedel's proofs).

But with my constructive hat(s) on, even the wackos who espouse
obviously debunked crazy stuff play a necessary (and welcome) role.
Such "corruption" doesn't make me uncomfortable at all because it's all
part of the same grand scheme.

> As Sarbajit has pointed out, the system has more than a Single Point
> of Failure SPOF. And that the identification of SPOF's has inevitably
>  failed to contend with systemic flaws. In fact focusing on SPOF's
> may actually create more in a perverse feed back loop.
>
> A classic example was the discovery that the only way to keep
> Spitfire pilots alive in air battles was to get rid of the armour. It
>  gave them speed and added enormous fear to the pilot's performances.
> Today such a solution seems absolutely politically incorrect. Every
> incremental increase of armour had led to more deaths.

I think what you're trying to describe is an (at least partially) open
system.  Granted, to some extent Rosen, Maturana & Varela, Crutchfield,
et al are right that a certain extent of closure is required for
complexity; but to say a certain extent of closure is required is also
to say that a certain extent of openness is required, as well.  The
trick is which part is closed, which parts are open, is closure dynamic,
etc.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

Glen,

I am intentionally trying to avoid the typical negative connotation to
"Corruption" as I also avoid the positive connotation placed on "Evolution",
others tried that in 1930's.

My use of the word corruption is focused on a complex system and its
component machinery being usurped to fulfill a role or function not seen in
earlier manifestations. When ever a complex system is transformed I suspect
evolution and corruption without prejudice. It is pretty easy to decide if a
transformation is corruption since the system being transformed is usually
equipped with a rudimentary protection system intended to defeat such
subversions. So if the transfiguring agency escaped interdiction that is
good enough reason to call it "Corruption"  It gets very tricky when we
nudge close to symbiosis but usually there is a remnant of corruption
detectable but the agents managed a negotiated truce of some kind. THese are
so rare they are barely able to be enumerated. A typical test for which is
the case is to see what happens when one or the other party is removed.
Normally one species performs about the same, the other is not as stable on
its own. Tapeworms may produce some vitamins but overall they don't do well
on their own but Icelanders rarely notice a difference.

>From the perspective of an entomologist, I would call the co-insertion of a
virus with a hymenopteran egg into a host as corruption of the host system,
to shut down an immune system that would otherwise destroy the parasitic
life form. The interdiction system was clearly thwarted as with HIV Aids.

This example is complex upon complex. It involved three species. But it is
not the only such case described. There was if I recall an example of two
ground squirrel species in US held in ecological balance because the weaker
species carried an endemic virus ( Colorado Tick Fever Virus, I think)
exceptionally deadly to the more aggressive species, that makes it at least
a 4 species system.

White tailed deer are not native to Western Canada but when given the
opportuity to move along man made open fields, it could expand its range,
the white tailed deer carried a innocous helminth I think Brain Worm, the
worm laid its eggs into the digestive tract and was dispersed upon ground
cover.

When the eggs were ingested by Moose and Mule deer it destroyed the brains
of those species allowing the white tailed deer to drive out competition
from superior species, that is at least 5 species if you count man made
artifacts. What protected the moose was the dense coniferous Boreal forest,
now that is six species, the mule deer retreated into the Arid mountanous
western prairie. The lack of moose and mule deer seems to have pushed the
Grey wolf back and allowed the coyote to dominate. The white tailed deer
really has no effective predator but the automobile, since the long gun
regulations took effect and discouraged hunters. Severe winter cold used to
control their spread but now the suburban sprawl gave them support from
local nature lovers. So now we apparently live with Lyme disease right in
our backyards and Chronic Wasting disease is showing up all over North
America. The white tailed or Virginia deer is a study in complexity. I
honestly have no idea how many species it manages to influence. I suspect it
is superior to the common rat In that regard. It just prefers the suburbs to
the downtown districts.

If you think this cute Bambi is computable, then maybe so is Man.


Hey guys get me a beer and I could go on all night about weird interrelated
ecological diseases and human history.

NetLogo does not appear to have been used for any such typical examples
please correct me if I am wrong. It looks to me that a simple complex system
of three or four species is a tough slog for the time being.
Wish we had some CDC lurkers in the crowd.


Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky
Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)
 
120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.
Winnipeg, Manitoba
CANADA R2J 3R2
(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax
[hidden email]
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of glen e. p. ropella
Sent: April 1, 2010 3:44 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again

Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-03-31 09:04 PM:
> The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer
> simulations.

I have to agree with Victoria (and Eric), here.  "Corruption" does not
make sense in the context of evolution.   The sense of the word is that
we have some access to the purpose or intent behind evolution and any
wandering off that purpose or intent is "corruption".  But that's just
not the case.  We have no idea (or there does not exist) a telos to
evolution.  Hence, there can't be any corruption.

When a scientist uses a jargonal or deeply domain specific method (or
even just reformats a set of buzzwords) to get yet another paper
published or secure tenure at a university, they are not corrupt in any
sense.  And I don't actually tolerate such activity, I laud it as a
successful exploit of the system that exists.

Now, when I switch hats from constructive to critic, I make my best
attempts to critically point out to others how some science seems to
have more merit.  I try to help filter out the garbage.  But even the
best minds can be tricked or find themselves baffled (as Bertrand
Russell seems to have been by Goedel's proofs).

But with my constructive hat(s) on, even the wackos who espouse
obviously debunked crazy stuff play a necessary (and welcome) role.
Such "corruption" doesn't make me uncomfortable at all because it's all
part of the same grand scheme.

> As Sarbajit has pointed out, the system has more than a Single Point
> of Failure SPOF. And that the identification of SPOF's has inevitably
>  failed to contend with systemic flaws. In fact focusing on SPOF's
> may actually create more in a perverse feed back loop.
>
> A classic example was the discovery that the only way to keep
> Spitfire pilots alive in air battles was to get rid of the armour. It
>  gave them speed and added enormous fear to the pilot's performances.
> Today such a solution seems absolutely politically incorrect. Every
> incremental increase of armour had led to more deaths.

I think what you're trying to describe is an (at least partially) open
system.  Granted, to some extent Rosen, Maturana & Varela, Crutchfield,
et al are right that a certain extent of closure is required for
complexity; but to say a certain extent of closure is required is also
to say that a certain extent of openness is required, as well.  The
trick is which part is closed, which parts are open, is closure dynamic,
etc.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com


--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com


============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Steve Smith]

Vladimyr

I am intentionally trying to avoid the typical negative connotation to
"Corruption" as I also avoid the positive connotation placed on "Evolution",
others tried that in 1930's. 

My use of the word corruption is focused on a complex system and its
component machinery being usurped to fulfill a role or function not seen in
earlier manifestations.

Do you mean "exaptation"?   And if so, why would that (also) not be a mechanism of evolution?

When ever a complex system is transformed I suspect
evolution and corruption without prejudice. It is pretty easy to decide if a
transformation is corruption since the system being transformed is usually
equipped with a rudimentary protection system intended to defeat such
subversions.

You seem to be referring to *very* complex, evolved systems then... say like "life" for example?

 So if the transfiguring agency escaped interdiction that is
good enough reason to call it "Corruption"

I hear you implying that qualitative deviation of a (also complex) subsystem from it's former function is Corruption?   I'm fighting the negative/positive connotation problem here.   In my vocabulary, Exaptation  would be the "fortuitous" Corruption where the benefit of the overall system is *served* in some way by the "Corruption"?   Such general/absolute value statements seem to collapse into the vacuum when studied carefully.   The value system seems to be relative to the system attempting to remain coherent and interdict the transfiguring agency?

  It gets very tricky when we
nudge close to symbiosis but usually there is a remnant of corruption
detectable but the agents managed a negotiated truce of some kind. THese are
so rare they are barely able to be enumerated. A typical test for which is
the case is to see what happens when one or the other party is removed.
Normally one species performs about the same, the other is not as stable on
its own. Tapeworms may produce some vitamins but overall they don't do well
on their own but Icelanders rarely notice a difference.
  

It sounds like you are referring to the larger system as a ecosystem (or subsystem of an ecosystem) and the "corruption" happening when a species evolves in a way that changes it's relations qualitatively to the other members of the system?

>From the perspective of an entomologist, I would call the co-insertion of a
    

virus with a hymenopteran egg into a host as corruption of the host system,
to shut down an immune system that would otherwise destroy the parasitic
life form. The interdiction system was clearly thwarted as with HIV Aids.
  

I understand this example and see how one would want to use the term "corruption"... but maybe I'm seeking the moment of differentiation and trying to find the label to be used there.   It seems that before the virus was present in the (Wasp?), it's eggs inserted into the host had only a miniscule chance of survival due to the host immune system.   In this case, I'm not sure how "corruption" is a dual of "evolution"?   It seems like an environmental factor?  Or perhaps the "evolution" that could be corruption, is that the Wasp host to the virus which "tolerates" this specific virus is advantaged in it's reproduction by the virus's effect on the unwilling host to it's eggs/offspring?

This example is complex upon complex. It involved three species. But it is
not the only such case described. There was if I recall an example of two
ground squirrel species in US held in ecological balance because the weaker
species carried an endemic virus ( Colorado Tick Fever Virus, I think)
exceptionally deadly to the more aggressive species, that makes it at least
a 4 species system. 

White tailed deer are not native to Western Canada but when given the
opportuity to move along man made open fields, it could expand its range,
the white tailed deer carried a innocous helminth I think Brain Worm, the
worm laid its eggs into the digestive tract and was dispersed upon ground
cover. 

When the eggs were ingested by Moose and Mule deer it destroyed the brains
of those species allowing the white tailed deer to drive out competition
from superior species, that is at least 5 species if you count man made
artifacts. What protected the moose was the dense coniferous Boreal forest,
now that is six species, the mule deer retreated into the Arid mountanous
western prairie. The lack of moose and mule deer seems to have pushed the
Grey wolf back and allowed the coyote to dominate. The white tailed deer
really has no effective predator but the automobile, since the long gun
regulations took effect and discouraged hunters. Severe winter cold used to
control their spread but now the suburban sprawl gave them support from
local nature lovers. So now we apparently live with Lyme disease right in
our backyards and Chronic Wasting disease is showing up all over North
America. The white tailed or Virginia deer is a study in complexity. I
honestly have no idea how many species it manages to influence. I suspect it
is superior to the common rat In that regard. It just prefers the suburbs to
the downtown districts.
  

I'm still open to your introduction of the term "corruption" but I'm not quite getting it yet.  What I see above is the evolution of an ecosystem?   Which of the shifts in the subsystems would you label "corruption" vs "evolution"?   Especially if you don't use some value-system to distinguish them?  They seem like one in the same otherwise.  Although I concede that the value system (and therefore the designation of corruption?) is somehow relative.

If you think this cute Bambi is computable, then maybe so is Man.


Hey guys get me a beer and I could go on all night about weird interrelated
ecological diseases and human history.

NetLogo does not appear to have been used for any such typical examples
please correct me if I am wrong. It looks to me that a simple complex system
of three or four species is a tough slog for the time being.
  

I don't think it is a lack in NetLogo that limits these examples, I think it is a lack in the individuals' imagination that limits them.  Have you tried your hand at NetLogo?   I can see no reason within NetLogo that an arbitrary number of species cannot be modeled.   The definition and the "tuning" of the species might be a challenge.   A Systems Dynamics model might be more appropriate to start with than the Agent approach...  

Wish we had some CDC lurkers in the crowd.
  

We may very well.   Does the CDC actually model things at these levels of complexity?  I can imagine that some of the research they funds does, but CDC proper is probably working at a more brutally blunt level?  I imagine Doug might have some insight into that?


Thanks for the injection of new perspectives into the list... 

The $64,000 question is "are You a corruptive or evolutionary element in the FRIAM group?" 

To understand the term, should we ask if you are somehow usurping an intrinsic feature (component system) of the group to fulfill a heretofore unseen role or function?

On the surface, I would suggest that you might be "corruptive" by your definition in that you might be adjusting our landscape from the handful of comfortable basins of attraction we wander in

1. discussing the meaning of  terms and how they  fit between  different disciplines
2. discussing the latest technological (hardware or software)  gadget
3. discussing semi-local politics and restaurants around Santa Fe
4. making bad (sometimes good) puns
5. discussing relatively well explored emergent behaviour in relatively familiar CAS).
6. teasing eachother good naturedly
7. dropping names and sharing Erdos numbers
   
8. taking offense to good natured teasing
9. stretching our examples, metaphors, and good taste to the limit
   
10. using a new member on the list as an excuse to write an expository piece about the list
    

The new basin of attraction you may have added to the landscape is really just a variant on 5th?  You are offering us examples of more complex CAS than we normally discuss and appearing to be competent to untangle them at some level.  (Expect a flurry of equally complex examples from all quarters!)

I expect your comments to also encourage the likes of Doug and I (others prone to this as well!) to postulate some kind of strange coupling between peletons of bicycle riders, the various body fluids and viral/bacterial/reproductive-cell loads that they shed and share (we heard rumors of sweat and snot but semen was specifically ruled out, despite how excited some of the bicycle riders here seem to get about their spandex suits) while riding and some of the interesting emergent behaviour one might imagine in this milieu, especially when riding through the complex terrain of Tehachipi pass while the winds are high and the ensemble (fixed peloton-like configurations) of windmills are running.

Welcome again, some more!

- Steve
PS.  I'm leaving town (and e-mail) for 3 days, so this is sort of a hit and run... I'll be interested to see how many take all the bait I've chummed the waters with here when I get back!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

[Vladimyr Burachynsky]

Hi Steve,

 

I admit to being “Corruptive” I do have an agenda in vague terms and need to sharpen the edges of my tools. Your group is probably the finest complex system machine I have ever encountered. I hope that my Corruption may result in something beneficial to other members and I have to keep in mind that as Much as I take I have to give something back or you will shrug me off. Part of my challenge is to determine what you value and if I have that to spare will offer that hopefully as compensation for my Corruption.

 

Those systems I described were the basics of my academic life. We had none simpler than that. I started in the wrong place unfortunately.

There was a time when researchers viewed the pathogen as some kind of accident in the environment. Maramorsch changed that when he positioned the pathogen at the center of the dynamics and began discussion of the ecology of diseases. Rather than focus on the Man which often as not was accidental he focused on the ecology or Nidi the home of the disease. By changing the perspective he simplified some aspects and opened  doors to entirely unexpected influences.

 

Life does appear at times to be the interaction of multiple complex systems with feedback loops looking nearly infinite at times. The best mental model I have is two mirrors facing each other,  But reality is many more than two while almost infinite the number of mirrors is finite but the feed back loops are not.  Now each recursion is not of the same value as others, so ultimately the distant ones could be ignored while focusing on the first few orders. My version of reductionism.

 

I struggle with the notion of computability and wonder with two mirrors how large the Turing Machine will become before it occupies the entire space between the mirrors. Every time the Turing machine steps one frame forward it must recalculate all the images. It reminds me of Borges’ Labrynths. The Turing machine must be real in order to compute, but that requires it to exist within the context of the problem and its very presence makes the solution impossible or so it seems to my feeble thinking.  

 

Leaving that I consider other ideas, more from physics and engineering. I like the notions of smoothly continuous stress distributions. I used the Bernoulli-Euler formula for large deflections to model composite beams composed of discreet elements. Placing them in the cantilever configuration and applying a tip load I noted that no element knew of the state of a distant element and only vaguely of it’s neighbour’s state. Even then it is questionable whether or not an element has any awareness of the neighbour.

 

My thesis advisors were mostly interested in the next grant application so I never entered into any deep discussions about the nature of my iterative nonlinear solution algorithm. But this much I can tell you, the algorithm stepped through the solutions usually less than 10, and it would appear the tip of my structure vibrated in a manner akin to a well damped oscillation just like a fishing rod and came to rest at a position where stresses were smoothly continuous.  The real structures tended to behave the same way as the algorithm , I used Maple programming to analyze these structures.

 

This got a little weirder in time. Typically we make structures out of a single uniform material, as a lark I started screwing around. Each element was defined by geometry and material properties. I altered some elements and gave them apparently incompatible material properties. For instance a pole with steel sections and composite sections with different lengths and diameters all connected end to end. Well this beast would never be handed to students for analysis in the old days.   

 

 

I got successful solutions, the deformed shapes were a little unusual but the stress state smoothed itself out. I built real complex structures and the experimental evidence supported the mathematical models and I finished my project and left.

 

Now I started from a different position than you gentlemen and ladies, I am attempting to progress using your insights and append those to my own. If successful you will have an alternative method of addressing certain problems. If I fail we can focus on coffee shops.

 

 

I studied Finite Element Methods for a time and wrote a lot of C++ code before Windows. Back then Prusenkewiez(?) published the “Algorithmic Beauty of Plants”

 

It was magnificent, but I was a just a Mechanical Engineering grad student and we were only allowed to talk about it over beer or coffee. My point was to explore plant growth (Complex Structures) using feedback about element stress states. It died but we still muse over new element concepts that have feedback about states and the ability to transform, like cells, to reduce the stress state.  These elements were all supposedly connected physically, but components of a real ecosystem are disconnected physically but still seem to respond to each others states. So I have a very bottom Up approach to these complex adaptive systems. It grew very nasty quickly trying to work with crappy graphics and integrating different types of software and working with so many incompatible formats, I had to stop and  pay bills. Not being attached to a computer sciences team I wandered lost in the wilderness.

 

NetLogo is very different from my own perspective but I continue exploring it for now. Your community is very much unlike any that I have ever engaged. I always feel compelled to apologize for my “Corruptive “ behavior. So you have my poorly laid out agenda, I wish to explore living systems interactions where by the individual element makes decisions with its neighbours based on simple stress states. Engineering stress is one version of many. I was hopeful that the few simulations I constructed tended to damp down to a solution relatively quickly. The solutions were never as satisfying as closed form solutions but they seemed to reflect the reality around me better than expected. I began to think that Real World Solutions are all unstable and somewhat negotiated rather than fixed as one expects from mathematical approaches. My interest in Soap Bubble topology fits in that line of thinking. The issues of computability NP complete etc all strike me as being beside the point. The real world does not always have perfect solutions it seems to make due with simple  smoothed out stress states. In one role working on Solid state diffusion I noted that at the Quantum level perfect solutions are very difficult to find for adjacent dissimilar atoms. Such systems were seemed to be  perpetually alternating between imperfect solution states. The stress being redistributed via photons or phonons to distant neighbours in an attempt to mitigate the degree of discontinuity.

 

It appears others are working on related concepts and use different metaphors or language so for now I am attempting to engage the group and learn the “Talk” Lurking was not working as well as I had hoped.

 

So I will take a risk of being repelled and hope I can get away with some Booty before you call the cops.:)

I openly admit to being a “Corrupting Influence” Let’s see if it becomes positive or negative over time.

 

Perhaps there are some talents which you can exploit on your behalf, let’s negotiate

 

 

 

 

 

Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky

Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology)

 

120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd.

Winnipeg, Manitoba

CANADA R2J 3R2 

(204) 2548321  Phone/Fax

[hidden email] 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
Sent: April 2, 2010 11:58 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again

 

Vladimyr

I am intentionally trying to avoid the typical negative connotation to

"Corruption" as I also avoid the positive connotation placed on "Evolution",

others tried that in 1930's. 

My use of the word corruption is focused on a complex system and its

component machinery being usurped to fulfill a role or function not seen in

earlier manifestations.

Do you mean "exaptation"?   And if so, why would that (also) not be a mechanism of evolution?

When ever a complex system is transformed I suspect

evolution and corruption without prejudice. It is pretty easy to decide if a

transformation is corruption since the system being transformed is usually

equipped with a rudimentary protection system intended to defeat such

subversions.

You seem to be referring to *very* complex, evolved systems then... say like "life" for example?

 So if the transfiguring agency escaped interdiction that is

good enough reason to call it "Corruption"

I hear you implying that qualitative deviation of a (also complex) subsystem from it's former function is Corruption?   I'm fighting the negative/positive connotation problem here.   In my vocabulary, Exaptation  would be the "fortuitous" Corruption where the benefit of the overall system is *served* in some way by the "Corruption"?   Such general/absolute value statements seem to collapse into the vacuum when studied carefully.   The value system seems to be relative to the system attempting to remain coherent and interdict the transfiguring agency?

  It gets very tricky when we

nudge close to symbiosis but usually there is a remnant of corruption

detectable but the agents managed a negotiated truce of some kind. THese are

so rare they are barely able to be enumerated. A typical test for which is

the case is to see what happens when one or the other party is removed.

Normally one species performs about the same, the other is not as stable on

its own. Tapeworms may produce some vitamins but overall they don't do well

on their own but Icelanders rarely notice a difference.

It sounds like you are referring to the larger system as a ecosystem (or subsystem of an ecosystem) and the "corruption" happening when a species evolves in a way that changes it's relations qualitatively to the other members of the system?

>From the perspective of an entomologist, I would call the co-insertion of a

virus with a hymenopteran egg into a host as corruption of the host system,

to shut down an immune system that would otherwise destroy the parasitic

life form. The interdiction system was clearly thwarted as with HIV Aids.

I understand this example and see how one would want to use the term "corruption"... but maybe I'm seeking the moment of differentiation and trying to find the label to be used there.   It seems that before the virus was present in the (Wasp?), it's eggs inserted into the host had only a miniscule chance of survival due to the host immune system.   In this case, I'm not sure how "corruption" is a dual of "evolution"?   It seems like an environmental factor?  Or perhaps the "evolution" that could be corruption, is that the Wasp host to the virus which "tolerates" this specific virus is advantaged in it's reproduction by the virus's effect on the unwilling host to it's eggs/offspring?

This example is complex upon complex. It involved three species. But it is

not the only such case described. There was if I recall an example of two

ground squirrel species in US held in ecological balance because the weaker

species carried an endemic virus ( Colorado Tick Fever Virus, I think)

exceptionally deadly to the more aggressive species, that makes it at least

a 4 species system. 

White tailed deer are not native to Western Canada but when given the

opportuity to move along man made open fields, it could expand its range,

the white tailed deer carried a innocous helminth I think Brain Worm, the

worm laid its eggs into the digestive tract and was dispersed upon ground

cover. 

When the eggs were ingested by Moose and Mule deer it destroyed the brains

of those species allowing the white tailed deer to drive out competition

from superior species, that is at least 5 species if you count man made

artifacts. What protected the moose was the dense coniferous Boreal forest,

now that is six species, the mule deer retreated into the Arid mountanous

western prairie. The lack of moose and mule deer seems to have pushed the

Grey wolf back and allowed the coyote to dominate. The white tailed deer

really has no effective predator but the automobile, since the long gun

regulations took effect and discouraged hunters. Severe winter cold used to

control their spread but now the suburban sprawl gave them support from

local nature lovers. So now we apparently live with Lyme disease right in

our backyards and Chronic Wasting disease is showing up all over North

America. The white tailed or Virginia deer is a study in complexity. I

honestly have no idea how many species it manages to influence. I suspect it

is superior to the common rat In that regard. It just prefers the suburbs to

the downtown districts.

I'm still open to your introduction of the term "corruption" but I'm not quite getting it yet.  What I see above is the evolution of an ecosystem?   Which of the shifts in the subsystems would you label "corruption" vs "evolution"?   Especially if you don't use some value-system to distinguish them?  They seem like one in the same otherwise.  Although I concede that the value system (and therefore the designation of corruption?) is somehow relative.

If you think this cute Bambi is computable, then maybe so is Man.

Hey guys get me a beer and I could go on all night about weird interrelated

ecological diseases and human history.

NetLogo does not appear to have been used for any such typical examples

please correct me if I am wrong. It looks to me that a simple complex system

of three or four species is a tough slog for the time being.

I don't think it is a lack in NetLogo that limits these examples, I think it is a lack in the individuals' imagination that limits them.  Have you tried your hand at NetLogo?   I can see no reason within NetLogo that an arbitrary number of species cannot be modeled.   The definition and the "tuning" of the species might be a challenge.   A Systems Dynamics model might be more appropriate to start with than the Agent approach...  

Wish we had some CDC lurkers in the crowd.

We may very well.   Does the CDC actually model things at these levels of complexity?  I can imagine that some of the research they funds does, but CDC proper is probably working at a more brutally blunt level?  I imagine Doug might have some insight into that?


Thanks for the injection of new perspectives into the list... 

The $64,000 question is "are You a corruptive or evolutionary element in the FRIAM group?" 

To understand the term, should we ask if you are somehow usurping an intrinsic feature (component system) of the group to fulfill a heretofore unseen role or function?

On the surface, I would suggest that you might be "corruptive" by your definition in that you might be adjusting our landscape from the handful of comfortable basins of attraction we wander in

1.      discussing the meaning of  terms and how they  fit between  different disciplines

2.      discussing the latest technological (hardware or software)  gadget

3.      discussing semi-local politics and restaurants around Santa Fe

4.      making bad (sometimes good) puns

5.      discussing relatively well explored emergent behaviour in relatively familiar CAS).

6.      teasing eachother good naturedly

7.      dropping names and sharing Erdos numbers

8.      taking offense to good natured teasing

9.      stretching our examples, metaphors, and good taste to the limit

10.  using a new member on the list as an excuse to write an expository piece about the list

The new basin of attraction you may have added to the landscape is really just a variant on 5th?  You are offering us examples of more complex CAS than we normally discuss and appearing to be competent to untangle them at some level.  (Expect a flurry of equally complex examples from all quarters!)

I expect your comments to also encourage the likes of Doug and I (others prone to this as well!) to postulate some kind of strange coupling between peletons of bicycle riders, the various body fluids and viral/bacterial/reproductive-cell loads that they shed and share (we heard rumors of sweat and snot but semen was specifically ruled out, despite how excited some of the bicycle riders here seem to get about their spandex suits) while riding and some of the interesting emergent behaviour one might imagine in this milieu, especially when riding through the complex terrain of Tehachipi pass while the winds are high and the ensemble (fixed peloton-like configurations) of windmills are running.

Welcome again, some more!

- Steve
PS.  I'm leaving town (and e-mail) for 3 days, so this is sort of a hit and run... I'll be interested to see how many take all the bait I've chummed the waters with here when I get back!

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org