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