DON'T THINK ABOUT A WHOLE ORGANISM: FRAMING THE
QUESTION IN SCIENCE
DON MIKULECKY
PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF PHYSIOLOGY AND SENIOR FELLOW IN THE CENTER FOR THE STUDY
OF BIOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY-VCU
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/
WHAT IS “FRAMING THE QUESTION”?
Based on the work of George Lakoff Cognitive Linguistics Frames are the mental structures that
shape the way we see the world Facts, data, models, etc. only have
meaning in a context Leads us to a scientific application of
framing : Rosen’s theory of complexity
Framing the question
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
An Example of Reframing the question to get an answer : The work of Robert Rosen
What is life?
Why is an organism different from a machine?
THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS, A SCIENCE OF FRAMING
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
ENCODING
DECODING
CAUSALEVENT
MANIPULATION
WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN
ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING”THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”
THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
ENCODING
DECODING
CAUSALEVENT
IMPLICATION
WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
CAUSALEVENT
MANIPULATION
WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
NATURAL SYSTEM
FORMAL SYSTEM
MANIPULATION
WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION
INEVITABLE:
WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING
WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION
INEVITABLE: IT FRAMED THE QUESTIN
THE “REAL WORLD” REQUIRES MORE THAN ONE “FORMAL SYSTEM” TO MODEL IT (THERE IS NO “UNIVERSAL MODEL”)
WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE MODELING RELATION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION
INEVITABLE:
WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF “BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS “IN”)
WE DEVELOPED THE MYTH OF “OBJECTIVITY”
WHAT IS SCIENCE?
HAS MANY DEFINTIONS SOME OF THESE ARE IN CONFLICT SCIENCE IS A BELIEF STRUCTURE SCIENCE OF METHOD VS SCIENCE OF
CONTENT
WHY IS “OBJECTIVITY” A MYTH? (OR: WHY IS SCIENCE A BELIEF STRUCTURE)
THE FORMAL SYSTEM DOES NOT AND CAN NOT TELL US HOW TO ENCODE AND DECODE. (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 HELP (FOR EXAMPLE: STATISTICS)
MODELS EXIST IN A CONTEXT: A FRAME
WHY ARE THERE SO MANY DEFINITIONS OF COMPLEXITY?
SCIENTISTS FOCUS ON THE FORMAL DESCRIPTION RATHER THAN THE REAL WORLD
THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX FORMAL SYSTEMS COME IN VARYING
SHADES AND DEGREES OF COMPLICATION
WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE “COMPLEXITY THEORY” NECESSARY? (WHAT HAS “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” FAILED TO EXPLAIN?)
WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SOME OF THE PARTS?
SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM
Reductionism has framed complexity theory
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 lecture 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 question is the basis for change and broadening of ideas.
WHAT IS COMPLEXITY?
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”?)
ROSEN’S CONCEPT FOR COMPLEXITY: A NEW FRAME
Complexity is the property of a real world system that is manifest in the inability of any one formalism being adequate to capture all its properties. It requires that we find 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 distinct aspect are NOT
derivable from each other
The Mexican sierra [fish] has "XVII-15-IX" spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted ... We could, if we wished, describe the sierra thus: "D. XVII-15-IX; A. II-15-IX," but we could see the fish alive and swimming, feel it plunge against the lines, drag it threshing over the rail, and even finally eat it. And there is no reason why either approach should be inaccurate.
Spine-count description need not suffer because another approach is also used. Perhaps, out of the two approaches we thought there might emerge a picture more complete and even more accurate that either alone could produce. -- John Steinbeck, novelist, with Edward Ricketts, marine biologist (1941)
COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE MECHANISMS
COMPLEX NO LARGEST MODEL WHOLE MORE THAN SUM
OF PARTS CAUSAL RELATIONS RICH
AND INTERTWINED GENERIC ANALYTIC SYNTHETIC NON-FRAGMENTABLE NON-COMPUTABLE REAL WORLD
SIMPLE LARGEST MODEL WHOLE IS SUM OF PARTS
CAUSAL RELATIONS DISTINCT
N0N-GENERIC ANALYTIC = SYNTHETIC FRAGMENTABLE COMPUTABLE FORMAL SYSTEM
CIRCULARITY (SELF-REFERENCE) CAUSES PROBLEMS FOR LOGIC AND SCIENCE
I AM A CORINTHIAN ALL CORINTHIANS ARE LIARS OR “THE STATEMENT ON THE OTHER
SIDE IS FALSE”-ON BOTH SIDES
CAN WE GET RID OF SELF-REFERENCE, THAT IS, CIRCULARITY?
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?
SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND THE GENOME
REPLICATION
TRANSCRIPTION
HOMEOSTASIS
WHERE DO CELLS COME FROM?
DNA? GENES? PROTEINS? OTHER CELLS? SPONTANEOUS GENERATION?
THE CELL THEORY
CELLS COME FROM OTHER CELLS
WHY WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO THE QUESTION MADE THE PRESENT SITUATION
INEVITABLE:
THE MACHINE METAPHOR TELLS US TO ASK “HOW?”
REAL WORLD COMPLEXITY TELLS US TO ASK “WHY?”
THE FOUR BECAUSES: WHY A HOUSE?
MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER FORMAL: THERE WAS A BLUEPRINT FINAL: IT HAS A PURPOSE
WHY IS THE WHOLE MORE THAN THE SOME OF THE PARTS?
BECAUSE REDUCING A REAL SYSTEM TO ATOMS AND MOLECULES LOOSES IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAKE THE SYSTEM WHAT IT IS
BECAUSE THERE IS MORE TO REALITY THAN JUST ATOMS AND MOLECULES (ORGANIZATION, PROCESS, QUALITIES, ETC.)
SELF-REFERENCE AND CIRCULARITY
THE “LAWS” OF NATURE THAT TRADITIONAL SCIENCE TEACHES ARE ARTIFACTS OF A LIMITED MODEL
THE REAL “RULES OF THE GAME” ARE CONTEXT DEPENDENT AND EVER CHANGING- THEY MAKE THE CONTEXT AND THE CONTEXT MAKES THEM (SELF-REFERENCE)
EXAMPLE: THE LIFE/ORGANISM PROBLEM
LIFE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
PHYSICS DOES NOT PREDICT LIFE LIVING CELLS COME FROM OTHER
LIVING CELLS AN ORGANISM MUST INVOLVE
CLOSED LOOPS OF CAUSALITY LIFE DOES INVOLVE PURPOSE
EXAMPLE: THE MIND/BODY PROBLEM
HOW CAN THE MIND MODEL ITSELF? AM I CONSCIOUS? HOW DOES THE BRAIN PRODUCE
CONSCIOUSNESS, SELF AWARENESS, ETC.?
CONCLUSIONS
THE REAL WORLD IS COMPLEX THE WORLD OF “SIMPLE MECHANISMS” IS A
SURROGATE WORLD CREATED BY TRADITIONAL SCIENCE
WE ARE AT A CROSSROADS: A NEW WORLDVIEW IS NEEDED
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH ATTEMPTS TO PROGRESS
YOUR CRYSTAL BALL MAY BE AS GOOD AS MINE OR BETTER
POST SCRIPT
WE LIVE IN A WORLD DOMINATED BY COMPUTERS MOST COMPLEXIFIERS BELIEVE THAT
COMPLEXITY IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL WITH ON THE COMPUTER
THIS NOTION OF COMPLEXITY FOCUSES ON THE MECHANICAL ASPECTS OF THE REAL WORLD
WHAT MAKES THE REAL WORLD COMPLEX IS ITS NON-COMPUTABILITY
Top Related