Dear Joseph and Stan,
Both of you mention about earlier work on isomorphisms, and you also mention
hetero-organization. If it is not inconvenient, may I request more information
on this? You also mention that the use of self-organisation could be a
distracting, could you recommend an alternate formulation?
 
At this time, I must clarify that I am not suggesting a hierarchical
relationship between the three levels. I am referring to hierarchical
organisation within the species at each level - molecules (level1), cellular
species (level2) and social groups (level3). 
 
Coming to your question- how does the concept of hierarchy affect the analysis?
The common multilevel organisational pattern presented here suggests that a core
element in human social organisation involves exchange networks based on flow of
human resources between kinship based social groups (like families) and
non-kinship based social groups (like businesses).  This implies that evolution
of social organisation is based on the emergence of two species classes with
greater complexity and greater compositional hierarchy- kinship based social
groups and non-kinship.
 
The question then are- why and how do living species give rise to exchange
networks between species with increasing complexity (and compositional
hierarchy) ? Will this pattern continue at the next higher level? 
 
Bob Logan and others point to the role of human language and the generation of
conceptual knowedge in the emergence of non-kinship based social groups.  It is
interesting that Timo Honkela and Kohonen generalise these ideas and describe
processes that gives rise to conceptual knowledge in systems of interacting
agents. Do Alphabetic catalysts like DNA and Proteins play a similar role as
human language in the emergence of exchange networks at two different levels?
(see section 4.4., paper II in this kick off email).
 
While many theoretical perspectives have been presented on the evolution of such
systems (Stanley Salthe- Evolving Hierarchial Systems, Ch 8, John Holland-
aggregate agents, Eric Chaission- growing energy rate density, and others) what
is most interesting here is that the CMOP provides opportunity to examine
processes that give rise to such organisation in much greater details. This
could provide more insights into the emergence and evolution of such
organisations. 

Given the diverse research interests and great depth in this group, I would love
to get your views on these questions. Your views are greatly appreciated. 
 
Thanking you,
Regards, 
Nikhil Joshi
 
 
 
 
Given the wide 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Nikhil,

I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a consensus might be
reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from the different
perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at instances of
isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely logical (;-).
Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not identical, and
this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a given level
involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it should be
possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and B, the resultant
of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in somewhat different terms.

On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the term
'self-organization' does not bring any additional knowledge. It diverts
attention from the dynamics of the different flows, which are also affected by
such a multitude of external factors, actual and potential, that the process
could equally well be called hetero-organization.  Also, and I really just ask
this as a question, how does the concept of hierarchy affect the analysis? If as
you write there are different species involved in exchange networks across
ascending levels, what would be important to know are the details of these
exchanges. Here, the above discontinuity between levels seems to be replaced by
a degree of continuity. Your statement implies to me interactions /between/
different levels, but are these interactions bi-directional reactions? How would
the rates of forward and back reactions be related?

I look forward to your comments on the above which I assure you is intended to
be constructive.

Best wishes,

Joseph
 
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Reply via email to