> I agree that McCulloch's concept of heterarchy is relevant and important,
> but that is a concept that refers to a system that is governed or controlled
> from a source external to itself -- that is, external to the system under
> observation or discussion. "Hetero" means other, or different. I would wish
> to begin by considering inter-systemic relationships before considering
> intra-systemic connections. Perhaps this is a distinction without a
> difference -- in the sense that for every system there is another system to
> which it is related.
>
I would welcome a refreshment on what heterachy is.
> I do not wish to fall into the trap of thinking that because there are
> different, separate or, even, "higher" inter and intra systemic levels, that
> therefore they stand in a command/control relationship to each other. There
> is a sense in which the Universe is the ultimate and/or metasystem of all
> systems, but the question is whether or not that means a system is
> controlled by that level or system of higher or different logical order.
This is indeed important to keep in mind. A cell is bigger than its
DNA, and so we place cell above dna in a hierarchy. In terms of a
control hierarchy this is of course utterly wrong. DNA can control a
cell in a specific process, and the cell contents, can steer dna. The
process is largely almost cyclic. Without cell enzymes no dna
expression, and without dna no cell-enzymes. So the control relation
needs to be specified in every situation.
I get the feeling that the more list-owner types [clif :-)], are into
viewing control relations in the theoretical and mathematical sphere,
which gives them an edge I think.
However, math and theory are always a bit more clean than reality, so
a biologist like me begins to wonder how empirical reality looks like
in the eyes of theoretical notions. I think this is where this list
at these points mostly stops in functioning. That is also why I keep
trying to let people make examples. I think some theoretical notions
are difficult to understand in the real world. Not only because we do
not all know how a cell works, and how math works, but also becuase
if you know both, it still is difficult.
But maybe I am straying of [is that English?]. I would like to know
if people share these thoughts, or if you want me to shut up.
Let me start myself to give examples. I think control theory is a
mathematical theory [is that right?].
Math however is largely what is called classification, and not
population thinking [alhtuogh there is also math to describe that]
.. This means that a math person will probably be
very good in telling us how control levels, etc can be defined, like
in the message from Gary.
However, the question in empirics is then; what do we call a level,
and what do we call a control process. Here we have the problem that
inclusive levels are obviouss, and control levels a lot less. They
tend to cross these inclusive levels.
The next question we can ask in empirical realtiy is how did those
levels get there, and what theories do we have to explain that.This
is the realm of evolutionary theory. And If I understand
meta-transitions, these are evolutionary concepts. First we must ask
what these levels are, and then how they came about.
>
> I think Hans-Cees's comments about biological systems are extremely
> important. The idea of emergence and/or generation is relevant to our
> dialogue. So is the idea of systems in recursive relationship to each other
> -- which is the topic that started this dialogue last year, in the first
place.
>
> For me, hierarchy is defined from the root words from which the term is
> derived: "government by priests" -- which implies that there is a
> command/authority relationship between the levels, intra-systemically. The
> same could be true inter-systemically between micro, meso and metasystemic
> levels. The Pope does control the College of Cardinals, who control the
> Bishops... and so on "down" the line. The General does control the
> Brigadiers, who control the Colonels, Captains, Lieutenants, Sargeants... It
> is a characteristic of this kind of relationship that each level commands
> all the "lower" levels and is governed by the "higher" levels.
These are examples of the question what empirical control
relationships are. We need other concepts to explain how they got
there.
I think a this time that the math people, I hope they are not
offended by this characterization of them, tell us what they think
about this.
greetings,
Hans-Cees
Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob]
-------------------------------------------------------
|Hans-Cees Speel School of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and management
|Technical University Delft, Jaffalaan 5 2600 GA Delft PO Box 5015 The
Netherlands
|telephone +3115785776 telefax +3115783422 E-mail hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
HTTP://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html featuring evolution and memetics!