[Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
Dear All, The research presented here is focused on gleaning insights leading to new solutions to the economics vs ecosystem conflict. The roots of many of our problems in ecological sustainability lie in the fact that our socio-economic systems are largely focused on fulfilling only human needs and the needs of human organizations. In doing so, as pointed out by Pedro, Bob, Francesco and others in this group our economics largely ignores the productive value of our ecosystems and the true costs of our development on our life supporting living systems. I term such a society as a “shallow society”, a society that is focused on the development of a single species and largely ignores the value of its own life-supporting living systems. With global population predicted to grow to 9 billion people, the next level of human development requires a transition of human society from being a “shallow society” that is only focused on only human needs to what I call a “deep society”. A deep society is a society that includes all living systems in its development. In this view, a deep society is not only focused on needs of human beings and their organizations but its development models also include development of the entire gamut of life-supporting living systems. Such a society grows not by exploiting the resources of a living planet, but also it possesses the capability to nurture, grow and actively manage a “living planet” (and perhaps seed life on other planets as well). Human development in the future will require the creation of new capabilities to develop models leading to a deep society. The question then is- can we develop systems that will enable a fair-value reciprocity and exchange between living ecosystems and economic systems? While, the notion that economics does not adequately value natural systems has been highlighted by many researchers in the field of ecological economics. Ideas on how natural systems can be understood, valued and integrated into economics have remained elusive. A multilevel view (like the one presented here) allows one to compare socio-economic organizations with natural organizations and could also provide new insights into how the dynamics of natural ecosystems could be synergised with economic systems. The model presented in the kick-off session shows two levels of energetically and materially coupled exchange networks in ecosystems. At the first level of exchange networks geochemical molecules are organized into different autotrophic species, and modulated by Mycorrhiza (level 1). Different autotrophic species then become food for the different heterotrophic species hence giving rise to the next higher level of exchange networks in ecosystems, modulated by gut bacterial networks (Level 2). The question then is- how does nature organize to build-in synergies between these two levels? At level 1, Mycorrhiza networks are known to modulate growth rates across different autotrophic species by providing phosphorous to different autotrophic species in quantitative exchange for carbohydrates. Autotrophic species (or groups of autotrophic species) that provide more carbohydrate hence get more phosphorous. Hence carbohydrates play a role in influencing phosphorous allocation across different autotrophic species connected to a Mycorrhiza network. At the next higher level in the exchange networks between different autotrophic species and different heterotrophic species gut bacteria use carbohydrates to modulate growth rates in heterotrophic species. Hence carbohydrates seem to play a role both in influencing dynamics in exchange networks at level 1, as well as in influencing dynamics in exchange networks at level 2. Could such an organization where carbohydrates are a common influencing factor in exchanges at both levels serve to align both levels towards increasing overall carbohydrate production in ecosystems (hence increasing the overall primary production in ecosystems) by synergizing dynamics across both levels (and two different modulator networks)? Could this two-level role of carbohydrates provide new insights on aligning the third level of exchange networks (and our financial investment networks) with underling ecosystem exchange networks at level 1 and 2? At this stage, these and other ideas presented here require much further assessment and development. Nevertheless, at this early stage of development they seem to provide a different vantage to view multilevel living systems. Can multilevel research help in uncovering new ideas and insights to understand multilevel systems, and align economics and ecosystems? Your views, comments and feedback are much appreciated. Thanking you, Warm regards, Nikhil Joshi___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
Dear Guy and FIS colleagues, Thank you for your comments and the copy of your article. Your views on the roots of biological systems and their evolution in dissipate systems are very interesting. Your paper reminds me of a paper by Virgo and Froese on how simple dissipative structures can demonstrate many of the characteristics associated with living systems, and the work of Jeremy England at MIT. Given your research focus and expertise in looking at living systems as dissipative systems, I would appreciate your views and assistance in understanding the energetics involved in the common multilevel organisational pattern (CMOP) (presented in the paper II of the kick-off mail). At first glance, it appears that different levels in self-organization in living systems a core dynamic in living systems is comprised of a cycle between a class of more-stable species (coupled-composite species) and a class of less-stable species (decoupled-composite species), see paper II in the kick-off mail. hence: Level 1: Molecular self-organization, involves a cycle between oxidised molecules (more stable) and reduced molecules (less stable) in molecular self-organization in photosynthesis and cellular metabolism [Morowitz and smith]. Level 2: Cellular self-orgnaization, involves a cycle between autotrophic species (more stable) and heterotrophic species (less stable) in ecosystems [Stability of species types as defined by- Yodzis and Innes Yodzis, P.; Innes, S. Body Size and Consumer-Resource Dynamics. Am. Nat. 1992, 139, 1151]. Level 3: Social self-self-organization, involves a cycle between kinship-based social groups (more stable) and non-kinship-based social groups (less stable) [Stability of species types as suggested in Paper II, based on an extension of work of Robin Dunbar and others]. At level 1 (molecular self-organiztion)- solar energy is stored in the high-energy reduced molecules. Do you see a possibility that living systems could store energy in cycles involving less stable species at the two other levels (level 2, and 3) as well? (When I speak of stored energy, I am referring to stored-energy as introduced by Mclare, and discussed by Ulanowicz and Ho [Sustainable Systems as Organisms?, BioSystems 82 (2005) 39–51]. These are early thoughts and your views are much appreciated. Many Thanks, Warm regards, Nikhil Joshi > On 01-Dec-2015, at 10:27 pm, Guy A Hoelzer <hoel...@unr.edu > <mailto:hoel...@unr.edu>> wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have been following this thread with interest as much as time permits. I > think multilevel approaches to understanding information flow is an important > one. I also think the structure of natural systems exhibits both > hierarchical and heterarchical features. The hierarchies we formally > recognize can be extremely useful, but they are rarely exclusive of > alternatives. Here is a link to a paper Mark Tessera and I published a > couple of years ago arguing for one particular hierarchy of multilevel > emergence in physical systems connecting lower level physical systems to > biological systems: > > Tessara, M., and G. A. Hoelzer. 2013. On the thermodynamics of multilevel > evolution. Biosystems 113: 140–143. > > Regards, > > Guy > > Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor > Department of Biology > University of Nevada Reno > > Phone: 775-784-4860 > Fax: 775-784-1302 > hoel...@unr.edu <mailto:hoel...@unr.edu> ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
nguage like forms [Honkela et al (2006 and 2008), see Joshi (2015) paper II for a reference]. They have used a framework of “unsupervised learning” from machine learning to study the emergence of conceptual knowledge and language like forms in interacting autonomous agents. In machine learning terms unsupervised learning is learning that does not involve a environmental feedback [Litman (1996), see Joshi (2015) paper II for a reference]. Such learning is hence based on exchanges between interacting agents themselves. It is known to produce abstract knowledge that can be represented in the form of self-organizing maps [Honkela et al (2006 and 2008), see Joshi (2015) paper II for reference]. An interesting question is that if the two frameworks: (1) Evolution of sociality in kinship based social groups [Logan] and unsupervised learning in autonomous interacting agents [Honkela and others] both give rise to conceptual knowledge and the emergence of language like forms. Could there be equivalence between these two frameworks? In other words, can the learning in the course of evolution of sociality in kinship based social groups as described by Logan and others be represented as unsupervised learning in a machine-learning framework of Honkela and others? Another more speculative idea- kinship based social groups have been shown to belong to a larger class of coupled-composite systems, a class that also includes multicellular autotrophic species, and reduced molecules in the metabolic core in living cells [see Joshi (2015) paper II ). (2) Is this above process that begins with the emergence of sociality (coupled-composite systems) and evolves to the emergence of conceptual knowledge and language (i.e.- alphabetic catalysts), and finally to the emergence of non-kinship based social groups (decoupled-composite systems) also applicable at other levels in self-organization? Hence, could the evolution of cellular sociality [ref- Witzany’s work on RNA sociality in living cells] in evolution of early multicellular autotrophic species have given rise to “conceptual knowledge” at a cellular level, leading to the emergence of the next higher-level alphabetic catalysts- the DNA? could the emergence of DNA have facilitated the emergence of exchange networks between autotrophic and heterotrophic species (decoupled-composite systems)? I admit that these are very early thoughts and are highly speculative, but nonetheless could provide new avenues to pursue in developing a multilevel view of living systems by integrating different research streams. I humbly put forth these ideas for comments, and reflections from the FIS group. Your views and references to other work, will help assess these ideas and are greatly appreciated. Warm regards, Nikhil Joshi > On 01-Dec-2015, at 8:10 pm, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote: > > Dear Joshi, > > No matter what topic/title you used, no matter what goal you want to reach, > your post has raised a very important theory which can decide the future of > information science: Three Level Theory: Molecular (level1), Cellular > (level2), Social (level3). (Please excuse my minor modification). > > The FIS colleagues can easily recollect the theory of Cell, Brain, Firm which > was advocated by Pedro about 10 years ago, but I think this hierarchy is > could be much better spent taking some positive action. > > Social (level3): It can indicate the all human/social information studies. > Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological information > studies. > Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical information > studies. > XXX (level0): Particlate/physical information studies?? > > As we know, due to the Technological Information Science (It includes > computer science and telecommunications) is not self-organizational, or > antipoetic, so we generally don't consider it as a real information science. > > With my best regards! > > Xueshan > Peking University > > From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On > Behalf Of Nikhil Joshi > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:35 PM > To: fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es > Cc: Nikhil Joshi > Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, > Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1 > > 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 h
Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
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
[Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research
Dear Pedro, and Bob, Thank you for your responses, references and questions. In view of the 2 emails per week restriction on this group, I have consolidated my responses to both of your messages in this one message. I will begin with Pedro’s message: I agree with Pedro’s view that the systems treatment presented here is simplistic, and that this view could be reformulated to accommodate the much more complex nature of reality. Today the need for non-reductionist approaches is widely accepted (and appreciated) in the scientific community. However, regrettably much of our current research on complex living systems still remains within specific domains of research. In a way, confining research within specific domains itself is reductionism. One of the main aims of this effort is to put out a scaffolding of ideas that can integrate research domains and encourage researchers to collaborate to help build a multilevel view of important complex problems. One of the key challenges in such multilevel research, is that it requires a scaffolding of ideas that are simple enough for researchers across disciplines to understand. Hence this rather simplistic initial set of initial ideas that present a “gist” of a multilevel view to researchers across disciplines. It is believed that further collaborative research will naturally lead to the development of more complete (and perhaps more complex) multilevel view of the systems. Having said that, I would love to hear from the group on recommendations for alternative formulations that are not too complex that could be adopted. Your views are much appreciated, and would help set the direction for further research. This also brings me to Pedro’s second point about the “work-in-progress” nature of the similarities between modulator systems at three different levels. A number of well documented “high-level” similarities between these modulator systems have been presented here (section 2.2 and 2.3, Part III). This serves to establish an initial basis for this claim. The claim is inherently multi-level, and current line of research within individual research domains would not help in ascertaining this claim. In presenting it here, it is hoped that this multilevel view motivates researchers to look into these multilevel possibilities as well. However, I agree with Pedro that further research is required to settle this argument. It is the stated aim of this article to encourage researchers to explore these multilevel similarities. From Pedro’s and Bob’s message: May thanks to Pedro and Bob for pointing out opportunities and areas for further research in aligning ecosystems and economics. Bob brings out an important point- one of stability in ecosystems and economic systems and the need for systemic ways to build redundancy in such needs. Bernard Lietaer and his group have explored the use of "local currencies" to improve the stability of financial systems. The ideas presented here present a new possibility- can such “local currencies” be based on natural systems? could they take the form of digital currencies that allow exchanges with subsoil phosphorous in mycorrhizal networks? Ecosystems are known to have different species compositions, and productivity measures in different regions. Could such natural differences between local ecosystems be captured in such natural local currencies? These are areas for further research that we hope to undertake through collaborative research in the next stage of this effort. I would love to have the groups view on these possibilities, and ideas to further integrate economics and ecosystem dynamics. Thanking you, Warm regards, Nikhil ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
