ROBERT ROSEN AND GEORGE LAKOFF:

THE ROLE OF CAUSALITY IN

COMPLEX SYSTEMS

Donald C MikuleckyProfessor emeritus and Senior Fellow

in the VCU Center for the Study of Biological Complexity

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~mikuleck/

ROBERT ROSEN

STUDENT OF NICHOLAS RASHEVSKY WHO WAS THE FOUNDER OF THE MATHEMATICAL BIOLOGY PROGRAM AT CHICAGO. WROTE BOOKS ON NEURAL NETWORKS AND 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

GEORGE LAKOFF

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

TWO OF LAKOFF’S RECENT BOOKS NEED OUR ATTENTION

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

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

THE MODELING RELATION: THE ESSENCE OF SCIENCE

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 AND A DECODING BACK

WHEN IT ALL HANGS TOGETHER WE HAVE A MODEL

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

MORE ON THE MODELING RELATION

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 NATURAL SYSTEM (ENCODING AND DECODING ARE AUTOMATIC) AND ALL THAT IS LEFT TO DO IS TO MEASURE THINGS

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 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”

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 “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”)

Syntax vs Semantics

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

SOME CONSEQUENCES

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

Context dependence necessarily introduces circularity

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

SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND THE GENOME

REPLICATION

TRANSCRIPTION

HOMEOSTASIS

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?

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

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 IN SCIENCE TO GET AN ANSWER : THE WORK OF ROBERT ROSEN

WHAT IS LIFE (SCHROEDINGER)?

WHY IS AN ORGANISM DIFFERENT FROM A MACHINE?

LAKOFF ON CAUSALITY: TWO DISTINCT KINDS

DIRECT CAUSATION (REDUCTIONISM) SYSTEMIC CAUSATION (COMPLEXITY)

ROSEN AND LAKOFF BOTH RECOGNIZED THAT DIRECT CAUSALITY WAS THE WAY REDUCTIONISTS SAW CAUSALITY

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

THE RELATIONAL APPROACH TO A COMPLEX REALITY

FOCUS ON THE ORGANIZATION DEVELOP A SET OF FUNCTIONAL

COMPONENTS WHICH CAPTURE THAT ORGANIZATION

UTILIZE THE CAUSAL RELATIONS RESULTING FROM ANSWERING “WHY?”

FUNCTIONAL COMPONENTS

MUST POSSESS ENOUGH IDENTITY TO BE CONSIDERED A “THING”

MUST BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES FROM LARGER SYSTEMS TO WHICH IT MAY BELONG

ITS FORMAL IMAGE IS A MAPPING f: A -----> B

THIS INTRODUCES A NEW KIND OF “DYNAMICS” : RELATIONAL

ROSEN USED ARISTOTLE TO INTRODUCE A FORM OF SYSTEMIC CAUSALITY 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

ROSEN’SRELATIONAL REPRESENTATION OF AN ORGANISM IS SYSTEMIC

INVOLVES MAPPINGS METABOLISM IS f: A B A REPRESENTS METABOLITES WHICH CAN

ALSO EXCHANGE WITH THE ENVIRONMENT B REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF

METABOLISM f IS A MAPPING FROM A TO B MULTIPLE AND INTERMEDIATE CAUSES ARE

MANDITORY

METABOLISM/REPAIR SYSTEMS

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

THE IMPORTANCE OF CATABOLISM AND ANABOLISM NO STRUCTURE IS PERMANENT ADAPTABILITY AND CHANGE INHERENT NEEDS SPECIAL TYPE OF

ORGANIZATION IMPORTANT FOR UNDERSTANDING

EVOLUTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND HEALING

THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS

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”

f

A B

ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISM

f

A B

ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISM

f

A B

ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISM

f

A B

ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISM

ORGANISMS

ARE COMPLEX SYSTEMS

ARE CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE

ARE AUTOPOIETIC UNITIES

HUMAN BEHAVIOR IS COMPLEX

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

LAKOFF USES THESE IDEAS TO STUDY AMERICAN POLITICS

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 GROUPS

THE FAMILY AS A MODEL FOR SOCIETY

THE STRICT FATHER FAMILY IS THE MODEL FOR RADICAL CONSERVATIVE BEHAVIOR

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

THE CONSEQUENCES OF LAKOFF’S ANALYSIS ARE CONSISTENT WITH ROSEN’S VIEW OF SCIENCE

REDUCTIONIST SCIENCE RELIES ON DIRECT CAUSALITY AS DOES RADICAL CONSERVATIVISM – THE TWO ARE ASPECTS OF A SINGLE WORLD VIEW

COMPLEXITY SCIENCE POSES A THREAT TO THIS WORLDVIEW AS DOES PROGRESSIVE THINKING IN POLITICS

THIS REVEALS A GREAT DEAL ABOUT CONTROVERSIES INVOLVING SCIENCE AND RELIGION

ROSEN SHOWED THAT REDUCTIONIST/MECHANIST THINKING RESULTED IN THE NEED FOR A GOD (MACHINES NEED AN INTELLEGENT DESIGNER

COMPLEXITY THEORY SHOWS THAT ORGANISMS ARE DIFFERENT FROM MACHINES AND CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE (NO NEED FOR ANY OUTSIDE CAUSE)

PROBLEMS WITH THE USE OF DIRECT CAUSATION (REDUCTIONISM)

INTELLEGENT DESIGN IS THE ONLY USE OF ANY IDEA FROM COMPLEXITY AND IT 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 EXPLAINED USING DIRECT CAUSATION UNLESS A DIETY OR SOME OTHER SUERNATURAL AGENT IS INVOKED

TOWARDS A HOLISTIC THEORY OF COMPLEX HUMAN BEHAVIOR

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 PRESENTED BY LAKOFF AND ROSEN

New Book: Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics and Life by: Eric D. Schneider and Dorion Sagan, University of Chicago Press, 2005

THIS BOOK IS A GOOD INTRODUCTION TO HOW THERMODYNAMIC REASONING CAN BREAK OUT OF ITS REDUCTIONIST PRISON AND BEGIN TO BE USED IN THE STUDY OF COMPLEXITY SCIENCE

IT ALSO GIVES INSIGHTS INTO MY ROLE IN THIS