Re: Function, Symbiosis - action of models

["Tim Gwinn" <***>]

Dan,

Great points. Your description of the effects of the propagation of the
machine model also bring to mind what Judith mentioned recently about time.
Our ability to manufacture machines in high volumes at high rates places us
in a "faster" timescale relative to most of the biosphere. This seems to
exacerbate the impact of the machine model.

The quotes from Patten are enlightening, especially the second one: it runs
contrary to a commonplace view that direct effects take precedence, and
indirect effects have diminishing importance. This would also mean that
stability, as well as alteration, of the biosphere would depend heavily on
such indirect effects. Did he comment any on if (or not) the net effect of
indirect influences tended generically toward or away from stability?

Usually, once a system has been defined (i.e., an organism identified in the
biosphere), the sum of those direct and indirect effects from elsewhere
become lumped together as "environmental forces" impinging on the system
(organism). Its interesting how the (system+environment) view so incredibly
oversimplifies and obliterates those considerations of the makeup of
'forces'.

I also wonder about the role of indirect effects within an organism - it
seems likely the same kind of concerns would arise.

Regards,
Tim



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Dan
> Fiscus
> Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 11:07 AM
> To: ***
> Subject: Re: Function, Symbiosis - action of models
>
>
> Tim and John,
-snip-
>
> I would echo these ideas - that being in the world is to alter it, most
> likely irreversibly and often with very large ripple effects that can be
> amplified by connections outside us. In the more obvious cases, to
> make a model, then publish it (communicate quite widely to the
> world), we would create a kind of entity that can be replicated and
> altered and also embodied as in used to build technology. By these
> various actions the act of making the model and the model itself
> work to alter the world. My recent short hand story of this principle
> in modern times is that since the creation of the novel and generalized
> model of "world as machine" (Newton, Descartes et al.) and due to
> the world-altering network of indirect effects the world has become
> more and more like a machine (major signs of wear and tear and
> corrosion and break down and rube-goldberg-ization in the
> contraptions concocted to counteract such degradation). On the flip
> side, the world (our planetary environmental home, biosphere in
> general) will surely not be able to "heal itself" as long as the "world
> as machine" is the dominant mental model of Homo sapiens (major
> world alterers at the present time in history). I say this because
> that is not part of the concept or model of machine - they don't
> heal themselves. So, in my view, either Homo sapiens must cease
> to be the "prime movers" on earth, or the mental model must change
> to something more like "world as alive", at which point the possibility
> does arise for self-healing of something as large and complex as
> our high-interconnected and interdependent biosphere, which no
> one can control or force to heal from "outside" or top-down as
> some centralized World Saving Institution.
>
> One other set of ideas to bolster this, perhaps not directly, but
> perhaps even better in that it is indirect...
>
> This is also sorta a reply to Tim's question re: system failures and
> that book on unintended consequences...
>
> Bernie Patten is a systems ecologist who promotes the importance
> of indirect effects in ecosystem networks as a central organizing
> principle and key to life's special powers. One article in which he
> dwells on this is called Network ecology: indirect determination
> of the life-environment relationship in ecosystems. This is a chapter
> in the book Theoretical Studies of Ecosystems: The Network
> Perspective, by M. Higashi and T.P. Burns, eds. 1991. Cambridge
> Univ. Press. Bernie writes:
>
> "...local interactions...are not, in general, very determining of
> of behavior; immediate, direct interactions serve mainly to define
> networks that, once in place and operating, holistically determine
> the real, operational, ultimate or direct plus indirect relationships
> between entities involved in complex ecological systems." p301
>
> "Patten (1982a), for example, indicated that causal propagations
> associated with combinatorially increasing numbers of extended
> ...paths traced out as transitions proceed through networks, vastly
> dominate in magnitude the direct effects associated with direct
> transitions over paths of length 1..." p301
>
> There is a lot more, but it is hard to extract or quote out of
> context. Suffice to say that if indirect effects are oftern greater
> than direct effects in well-connected networks with cycles
> and amplification, then the ultimate impact of a model (like its
> ripple effects after its embodiment in technology) could be
> much, much greater (in terms of energy, information, matter,
> flux or content, spatial or temportal extent, etc.) than the
> original and likely small entity of the model itself - perhaps the
> original brain waves or connections of the modeler, or even the
> written or spoken communication of it. And as these impacts
> of a model as an "active agent" (or sign?) may be large in the
> world in general, it is an easy extension to suggest that the
> impact of the model on the modeler himself or herself may also
> be very large.
>
> So I like to proceed with this is mind, to be aware that what
> I put out into the world (or even think, imagine, in my own
> private, non-connected (?) mind) may very well come back
> home to roost and may do so many times magnified. We might
> do well to "be careful what we wish for", and also to take care
> in our modeling. I do not think it at all the abstract or inert or
> removed or dispassionate or objective practice that many
> in science seem to take it to be.
>
> Dan