1. ROBERT ROSEN AND GEORGE LAKOFF: THE ROLE OF CAUSALITY IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS
Donald C Mikulecky
Professor emeritus and Senior Fellow in the VCU Center for the Study of Biological Complexity

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS, A SCIENCE OF FRAMING
NATURAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
ENCODING
DECODING
CAUSAL
EVENT
MANIPULATION

8. WE HAVE A USEFUL MODEL WHEN
AND
ARE SATISFACTORY WAYS OF “UNDERSTANDING”
THE CHANGE IN THE WORLD “OUT THERE”

9. THE MODELING RELATION: A MODEL OF HOW WE MAKE MODELS
NATURAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
ENCODING
DECODING
CAUSAL
EVENT
IMPLICATION

10. 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

11. 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

12. WE ARE TOO AFRAID OF “BELIEFS” (SCEPTICISM IS “IN”)
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”

13. 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.

14. WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION
NATURAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
CAUSAL
EVENT
MANIPULATION

15. WHAT “TRADITIONAL SCIENCE” DID TO FRAME THE MODELING RELATION
NATURAL
SYSTEM
FORMAL
MANIPULATION

16. 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:
WE MORE OR LESS FORGOT THAT THERE WAS AN ENCODING AND DECODING

17. 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”)

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. SELF-REFERENCE, CIRCULARITY AND THE GENOME
REPLICATION
ENZYMES
DNA
PROTEINS
TRANSCRIPTION

22. MILLEU FOR CELLS, TISSUES AND ORGANS
HOMEOSTASIS
MILLEU FOR CELLS, TISSUES AND ORGANS
TISSUES
AND
ORGANS
CELLS

23. 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?

24. 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”?)

25. 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

26. The Mexican sierra [fish] has "XVII-15-IX" spines in the dorsal fin
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)

27. COMPLEX SYSTEMS VS SIMPLE MECHANISMS
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

28. 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

29. WHAT IS LIFE (SCHROEDINGER)?
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?

30. LAKOFF ON CAUSALITY: TWO DISTINCT KINDS
DIRECT CAUSATION (REDUCTIONISM)
SYSTEMIC CAUSATION (COMPLEXITY)

31. DIRECT CAUSALITY IS THE SIMPLEST KIND
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

32. 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?”

33. 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

34. MATERIAL: THE STUFF IT’S MADE OF EFFICIENT: IT NEEDED A BUILDER
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

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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”

39. ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISMB 

40. ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISM A B 

41. ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISMB 

42. ROSEN’S RELATIONAL MODEL OF THE ORGANISMB 

43. ORGANISMS ARE COMPLEX SYSTEMS ARE CLOSED TO EFFICIENT CAUSE
ARE AUTOPOIETIC UNITIES

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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)

49. 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

50. 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

51. IT ALSO GIVES INSIGHTS INTO MY ROLE IN THIS
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