Fritjof Capra, "Complexity and Life" - ISSS 2006 at Sonoma State University

Fritjof Capra, "Complexity and Life", ISSS 2006 at Sonoma State University, Sunday, July 9, 2006, 8:00 p.m.

Fritjof Capra, Center for Ecoliteracy, Berkeley, at the 50th Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Sonoma State University, July 9, 2006, 8:00 p.m..

These participant's notes were created in real-time during the meeting, based on the speaker's presentation(s) and comments from the audience. These should not be viewed as official transcripts of the meeting, but only as an interpretation by a single individual. Lapses, grammatical errors, and typing mistakes may not have been corrected. Questions about content should be directed to the originator. These notes have been contributed by David Ing (daviding@systemicbusiness.org) at the Systemic Business Community ( http://systemicbusiness.org ).

Introduction by Debora Hammond

First heard a tape of him, many years ago
Turning Point, Web of Life
Has moved onto the work of Leonardo Da Vinci
Organizations that serve, as well as preserve for future
Center for Ecoliteracy.

[Fritjof Capra]

Theme tonight is the new understanding of life, over the last 20 years: integrating biological, psychological and cognitive dimension

Historical roots

Systems thinking means in terms of relationships, patterns, processes and context

Complexity theory, non-linear dynamics

Review the historical development

Biological form
Number versus form
Bateson, Mind and Nature: do you ask what it's made of, or do you ask what is its pattern
Pythagoreans ask about patterns
Aristotle had 4 causes: material cause, formal cause, efficient cause, and the final case

First two are tension between matter and form
Two perspectives, matter and form

Often tension between parts and wholes

Parts: mechanistic
Whole: systemic

Matter and form distinction has persisted, in different fields: biology, psychology

Organized relations
Patterns
Gestalts, systems within systems
Ecosystems, ecological cycles, networks, communities

End of 1930, well defined

1940s: systems theories

Coherent frameworks, organizations of living systems
Classical systems theories: general systems theory and cybernetics
They represent the two perspectives: matter and form
Matter uses the language of physics and chemistry to describe material structure, forces: von Bertalanffy
Form: abstract mapping of relationships, e.g. networks of feedback loops
Historical development: lack of communication between the two forces
e.g. lots of discussion about whether living systems are open or closed: from matter, they're open, but in form they're closed

Mid-20th century: molecular biology and genetics, DNA, new mechanistic thinking

Systems thinking went underground

1970s-1980s, systems thinking re-emerged

Two innovations:

Self-organization
Non-linear dynamics, the new mathematics of complexity

Feature of these new theories is a new mathematical language to handle living systems
Even the simplest living cell is a network involving thousands of chemical reactions that are interdependent and go on all of the time
New techniques: chaos theory and fractal geometry
Non-linear
Science had previously tried to avoid non-linear equations: i.e. the first thing you do is linearize it, so that you can solve something other

Looking for lost keys under the lamp

1970s had high-speed computers to tackle non-linear equations
Revealed surprising patterns, an underlying order
Chaos theory is really a theory of order, an order revealed by the new mathematics
Summary by Ralph Abraham: "chaos is okay"

It's a new form or order

Result not a formula, but a physical shape, a pattern traced by the computer
Visual descriptions of complex dynamics

One of first scientists to use non-linear dynamics was Prigogine

Living systems, under non-linear
1960s, systems far from equilibrium
Breakthrough: systems far from equilibrium must be described by non-linear equations
Become theory of dissipative structures
Bertalanffy: living systems maintains itself far from equilibrium, yet it is stable: a state of flowing balance
Prigogine coined this a dissipative structure: close interplay between structure, and flow/change
Dynamics: spontaneous emergence of new forms of order
May reach instability or bifurcation into a new state
Order a new stability -- now called emergence -- is important to the understanding of life
Emergence is a hallmark of life
Creativity, the creation of novelty is a key property of all living systems
This property is all related to the openness of the system to flows of energy and matter
Open systems develop, learn, evolve

Second principle of self-organization in the late 1970s and early 1980s: autopoesis by Maturana and Varela

From ecology: recognition that networks are the basic pattern
Ecosystems are understood as food web
Where we see life, we set networks: don't that this literally, because they're functional networks, between processes: chemical reactions, feeding relations
Network is an abstract, non-material pattern
During the 1960s, while Prigogine
Maturana: circular organization, but also components are produced and maintained by it
The key characteristic of living networks is that they're self-generating
Cells, etc., continuously produced, maintained by living networks

Transform and replace components

Continued structural changes
Autopoesis, means self-making
Coherent theory of self-generating networks

Two outstanding theories applying complexity theory again reflect the study of matter and form

Prigogine comes from Bertalanffy, open systems
Maturana, from cybernetics: patterns of organization
Little communications between the followers of Prigogine and the followers of Maturana
Opinion that require synthesis
Have provide the outline of synthesis in the last two books

Emergence and refinement of pattern of organization has been a central theme in systems of thinking

Pattern as relationships
Ecologists as patterns of life
Causal links
Mathematics of visual patterns
Also need to understand details of systems structure

Define:

Pattern of organization: the configuration of relationships among the system components that determines the system's essential characteristics

e.g. something that is essentially a bicycle, a chair or a cat
In a bicycle, imagine had brought all of the parts of a bicycle and put them on the stage: would say it's not a bicycle, it's the parts of a bicycle
Get a bicycle by putting them togehter in an order: the pattern of organization
To describe the pattern of organization, can use a language, e.g. don't know to know whether frame is heavy or light
Description of structure is the material embodiment
Abstract mapping of relationships
Describing actual physical components

Living systems is different

Thousands of chemical reactions
Dynamic nature suggests process as a third criteria for a comprehensive description
Life: the process in the material embodiment
Link between pattern and structure

All three criteria are interdependent: patterns, structure and process

On theories of self-organization: can identify the structure as dissipative as per Prigogine, and as autopoetic as Maturana

New conception of mind and consciousness, overcoming Cartesianism

Proposed by Bateson and Maturana, elaborated by Maturana and Varela
Abandon the mind as a thing: Descartes on the mind as an extended thing
See the mind as part of the life process
Rich interdisciplinary field: cognitive science, the process of knowing
Maturana: the process of knowing, and the process of life
Self-perpetuation of living networks
Life and cognition become immanent
Mind and matter are complementary
Now have a scientific theory of mind, matter and life

Last part: the synthesis can be extended into the social dimension: in The Hidden Connections

Assumption: fundamental unity of life
Evolution has proceeded for billions of years, by using the same patterns
Patterns may become more elaboration, but are still variations on the same patterns
Social domain: extend life's basic patterns, and organization; living networks to social reality
Luhmann: social networks are networks of communications

Need to consider our inner worlds of consciouness and culture; value, goals, conflicts, power

Matter, form and process aren't sufficient, need a fourth perspective

Social networks are self-generating, but don't generate material structures

Meaning
Material structures are different form those from biological networks
Come from design, embody some meaning
The fourth perspective of life: the perspective of meaning -- culture, consciousness, inner life

Form, matter, process and and meaning

Juxtapose biological and social networks: a half-day exercise

Biological networks operate in matter
Social networks operate in meaning
Biological networks exchange molecules
Social networks exchange ideas
Biological networks have a material boundary
Social networks produce and sustain a non-material culture boundary, constraining behaviour of members
Can push this far

Extension includes the material world

For social scientists, this is unusual, because they're not traditionally interested in matter
Social structures are rules of behaviour
In the future, strict divisions may not be possible
Future: build ecological sustainable communities
Design principles of future communities must be consistent with nature's ability to maintain life

Conclude with some recent theoretical developments

Biochemistry and biology: pre-biotic or molecular evolution, Morawitz
Morphogenesis, biology of form, Stuart Kauffman, Ian Stuart
Gaia theory: Margulis
Cognitive science: consciousnessness: Varela, Dimasio, Lakoff
Social theory: networks, e.g. Castells, Barabasi
Organizational theorists: Wheatley, Juanita Brown

Often shy away from living systems, to emphasis networks

Doesn't change the fact that they're working in the systems sciences

Questions

Where does this lead? Not to a systems science. Science means testable in experience. Either change the name of ISSS to remove science, or we support the work that links to systems science.

Restatement: these ideas are beautiful, but they shouldn't be calling systems science, as in the ISSS, as science is based on experience.
All the scientists I mentioned and models I mentioned are empirical scientists
It's standard science in methods
Systems science vision: a patchwork of theories and models, glued together by systems science
Not an overarching theory, but a language so that we know how to relate

Biologists say these as stories. Kaufman, etc. patterns. Haven't included concrete examples on how these things relate to biological things. Eastern medicine is systemic, don't know whether it's right or wrong. Empirical science?

Answer is yes, didn't have time to go into this.
Many examples in the last two books.
Research team at the Federal Polytechnic in Zurich, ETH, autopoetic chemical systems, non-living (no proteins), but are self-generating; trying to relate this to RNA and DNA
Brian Goodwin, formation of single cell organization in the Mediterranean that forms parasols: computer model of the cells, good results in simulations
Agree, they're the minority school, and the majority are reductionist
At completion of the human genome project, biologist now know it's not about the thing, but the biogenesis

Unification of form affect fundamental physics?

Similar to how to chaos theory and complexity theory relate to quantum theory? Haven't followed this. From colleagues, not very clear.

In the new future, a grand theory of systems, with general principles, rules and laws?

It's possible to develop a theory, but we're far away.
We need to adopt these three different perspectives.
Can't just, as Bertalanffy, say will write down equations. Also need the patterns perspectives
In social systems, learn not only from cognitive, but also from social scientists, anthropologists, historians
In social systems, have people will map communications about how people link to each other, but they never what they talk about.
Need all dimensions.
The time to have these dimensions coalesce is probably still very far away.

Meaning: can this be understood from sciences below? Art and aesthetics inform? Where does this lead?

An interesting suggestion.
When we extend the systemic approach to the social dimension, we need to learn from the insights of cognitive science, political science, philosophy, history, humanities.
Have not added the arts to that. I should have.
One area where I have thought a lot is in the Center for Ecoliteracy: using principles of ecology in primary and secondary education, and we extensively use the arts, with an emotional connection to the earth

Reintegrate matter, form and process. What is the most promising approach?

Requires a long response. Read the last book, and then can correspond.

As we get further into understanding, may understand our first language of music has been ignored.

Along the same lines as what we can learn from artists.
Have also thought about this historically. Working on the synthesis of art and science with Leonardo Da Vinci.
Da Vinci composed music, but we don't have any records.

Complexity. Democracy? A crisis in democracy?

Yes. A whole different talk. It's certainly true.
It's come to such an extent that I hesitate to make comments in public, because I'm not an American citizen, have a green card.
Democracy is interesting in systems science: is there democracy in non-living systems, are there morals and ethics?

Not only art, but also myth in self-organizing systems?

30 years, when started Tao of Physics, started from the mystical traditions, but that's not work I'm doing now.

Realistic to discuss sustainability? Greeks, cyclicality? One political system, or a cycle?

Reflects a confusion.
What is sustained in a society is life, not the status quo, but it's life itself.
We're now interfering with those cycles, we're interrupting.
Not honouring, or cooperating with life.
Continuous change in life.

Attended preconference workshop on Bateson. Mind may not be in body, but in the system. Networks, in the worldwide web, so large that it's not mappable. Comment on this explosive network on the idea of mind. A global mind?

If you associate mind with life, and as Bateson and Maturana the maintenance of a living system, then every living system will be associated with some type of cognition: up to Gaia.
Total Gaia mind in human and non-human structures
Not much work has been done on this. Best book starting on this is by John Ury, Lancaster University, Global Complexity.

Sounds like history of sociology. Interested in general theory, but have come to have 2 or 3 general theories or more. May develop 27 hypotheses, and then there are 10 or 15 things still missing. Prefer triangulation. Can't say that one or two theory is good enough.

Patchwork or mosiac of theories interlinked, and the interlinking is the systemic component.

Big bang? Equifinality at the end

Big bang in the beginning.
Big crunch a few years away.
The problems of sustainability are really urgent.
Can recommend Al Gore's new film, An Uncomfortable Truth
U.S. is the main contributor to greenhouse gases and global climate change
It would be easy to increase the efficiency of cars.
Raising for 20 mpg to 30 mpg would make a big difference, we have the technology, but not the political will.

Ramifications of pros and cons, of looking at social structures as different from biological structures. Can see the benefit of looking a social structures as a metaphor, but what happens when you separate them?

In terms of patterns of organization, they're similar because they're networks.
The processes, though, are very different: biochemical versus communications.
Can't apply biochemistry, but can apply networks. That's the link.
The link is there, because that's the link of life.
Social systems came from biological systems.

What community of scientists?

Studies cognitive science when moved from physics.
In early 1980s, met Maturana and Varela, especially Varela.
Link between pattern and structure, form and matter, linked through the process of life, then cognition.
Then studied Dimasio, Lakoff.

Interest in information. Separating the social from the biological. DNA. Flight from materiality. Same kinds of risks. Exchanges of information, where it doesn't become more difficult to handle these concerns. When we communicate, we change others materials positions. It's always fugitive.

Agree. Information as exchange of ideas. Happy to drop information and discuss ideas.
We tend to think of bits of information being out there, and we can pick it up.
If we say it's now 9:25, it sounds a bit of information, but it presupposes planetary motion, and social construct of how we measure time.
It's the same with genetic information. It's an abstraction from a network of processes.

Maturana and Varela. Information and ideas.

Can talk about information in human consciousness, reflective consciousness. It's the first step. Maturana didn't go farther to analyze the abstractions that make it possible to speak about information.

Each system has cognition and intentionality. Gaia has intentionality?

A characteristics of consciousness. Wrote about this in Hidden Connections. Humans have the ability to form abstract mental images. If can't form an abstract mental image, can't have an intention.
If prefer some over others, have values.
Once have value, have conflicts.
When have conflicts, have power.
These all rest on the ability to form mental images. This isn't present in plants, or organisms without mental processes.

Sustainable development. Need a theory focused on political agency.

Systems approach studying the evolution of consciousness. Foster conscious evolution?

Agree, have the possibility to engage in conscious evolution.
If success means changes, then yes. But if success means sustainability, not going well.
U.S. policy is lacking some intelligent design.