Contribution on MSTT by L.T. Miller
Francis Heylighen (fheyligh@VUB.AC.BE)
Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:01:55 +0200
>Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:43:07 +0200
>From: "L.T. Miller" <ltmiller@teleline.es>
>Reply-To: ltmiller@teleline.es
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: fheyligh@vub.ac.be
>Subject: Contribution submitted by L.T. Miller Ramos-Su=E1rez, a newcomer=
to PCN
>
>Dear Mr. Heylighen:
>
>Please find below a number of ideas which I should be very thankful if
>you read through and let me have your opinion briefly on whether such
>material qualifies for the Principia Cybernetica Network, which I have
>only just discovered on the WWW. I would be very happy to submit more
>formally many other ideas I have been working on for some time and seem
>to be confirmed by recent developments in systems theory. Thank you and
>congratulations for your work and for the PCN project in particular.
>
>Leslie Miller
>
>
>
> The evolutionary systems that appear to be most fit for undergoing
>successful metasystem transitions are not precisely those that have
>achieved a higher degree of complexity compared with other systems of
>the same hierarchical level.
> In the animal kingdom it is not the fastest, largest or strongest that
>give rise to the social level of organisation. Among atoms it is not the
>heavier ones, which have many particles and are very stable in the face
>of high termperature or high pressure, that form organic molecules.
> Rather, in successful metasystem transitions, the "building blocks" of
>the next higher level of organisation are comparatively simple systems,
>not too well adapted, yet capable of interacting with similar systems to
>form supersystems. This perhaps reflects the fact that less complex
>systems, with a lower degree of internal control, reach the verge of
>chaos at lower energies, and at the same time require less input of
>energy or resources from the environment for restoring their internal
>equilibrium.
> For example, human beings originally were not particularly well adapted
>to living in any specific climate or environment, to reproducing at a
>fast rate, or even to playing a highly differentiated role in a larger
>community. They did not have a big brain compared with other mammals and
>did not walk quite erect or climb trees as nimbly as other primates.
>Organic molecules are made up of simpler atoms in the first few rows of
>the periodic table of the elements which do not form tight bonds with
>each other yet,as they are sometimes antropomorphically described by
>chemists, "wish" to obtain the maximum permitted number of electrons in
>their outer shell by sharing valence electrons with other atoms and thus
>make a maximum number of external bonds in the process.
> Such "building blocks" compensate for their comparative "unfitness" by
>developing an environment within the supersystem they form (for example,
>a society or an organic molecule) in which they are more fit to survive.
>Thus, in a system we should make a distinction between the actual
>elements, such as organic molecules or human beings, and the internal
>milieu of the supersystem which results from the building blocks
>"working together" to attract elements of a lower hierarchical level
>such as, in the above examples, inorganic molecules or buildings and
>food. The internal milieu of a supersystem ensures the fitness of the
>component systems by increasing the probability that the latter will
>find in their environment the resources or inputs they need to maintain
>their equilibrium and identity as systems.
> Within the internal milieu of a supersystem the systems can
>successfully continue to evolve and eventually achieve greater
>complexity and adaptation than other systems of the same hierarchical
>level which in themselves are more complex and resistant, yet are on
>their own.
> Thus we may conclude that the "anatomy" of a supersystem includes the
>component systems proper and the lower level systems which form the
>internal milieu.
> The evolution -variation and selection- that systems undergo within a
>supersystem consists of becoming more differentiated and integrated, and
>better able to communicate their internal information (replicate,
>reproduce).
> A system in action within a supersystem becomes differentiated by
>specialising in performing a given role or function, which involves
>repeatedly going through certain motions (like iteration of a function,
>or going into a cycle). Specialisation increases the efficiency of a
>system in performing the specific role or function, thereby increasing
>overall stability. The configuration of a specialised system changes so
>that it can perform the role better.
> For example, when one of the two electrons in the more stable and
>spherical "2s" bonding orbital around the nucleus of a carbon atom is
>excited into the outer "2p" bonding orbital we get a "hybrid" orbital in
>the valence shell of the atom that has 3/4 2p character and 1/4 2s
>character, and gives the valence shell a tetrahedral shape (here we
>should recall the significance of the tetrahedron in synergetics
>according to Fuller), so that the carbon atom can make four bonds,
>instead of the three bonds naturally available at the 2p level, with
>other atoms. The higher internal energy (lower entropy) required for
>keeping the four-valence configuration is compensated by the four
>stronger external bonds that the atom can make.
> In the case of human beings we also find that what changes in their
>"configuration" is the outer part of their organism, that which
>communicates with the environment: the brain and the hand. By walking
>erect, the hands are set free for purposes other than moving about.
> To preserve the stability of a system which becomes differentiated,
>greater integration or control is required within the system. At the
>same time, when a system becomes differentiated in function and
>configuration is becomes dependent on the supersystem for resources it
>cannot procure by itself. Therefore, stable exchanges ensue between
>differentiated systems which result in greater integration of the
>supersystem as a whole.
> The third major effect of the internal milieu of a supersystem on
>evolution of the component systems is that it provides suitable channels
>or means through which the systems can communicate their internal
>configuration or information, and the probability of such communication
>taking place. The ultimate form of communication is replication or
>reproduction, which leads to an extension of the supersystem in the
>environment, and sets the stage for a new round of differentiation and
>integration (as the greater the number of systems within a supersystem,
>the more they can specialise in performing different roles or functions
>and the greater the need for exchanges/interactions between the systems
>as well as for overall control or coordination).
> In the light of the foregoing we should make a distinction regarding
>the "physiology" of systems, between the standard relations that systems
>maintain with the environment originally, prior to differentiation,
>integration and communication, which could be called primitive
>relations, and the emergent relations they develop as a result of
>forming part of a supersystem, which could be called primary because
>they are essential to the supersystem and in the process of variation
>and selection within the supersystem become essential to the systems
>themselves.
> This distinction allows us to derive a rule: primitive relations tend
>to be phased out in benefit of primary relations, and in the process the
>original systems become subsystems. For example, in society primary
>relations can be equated with work, while primitive relations are
>maintained as play. Human beings and other systems continue to realise
>or maintain primitive relations in order to preserve their internal
>equilibrium by "letting off steam" in a way that is not destructive of
>the supersystem, yet these relations are not otherwise necessary to the
>supersystem. As
>the subsystems become more integrated and differentiated within the
>supersystem primitive relations are replaced by or subsumed into primary
>relations (for example, watching on TV a soccer match against the team
>from a neighbouring town, rather than following the primitive impulse of
>attacking the neighbouring town and burning it down). In the example of
>organic molecules, this rule would mean that carbon atoms tend to form
>increasingly specialised chains and to become ever more integrated in
>complex configurations, yet remain liable to enter into "primitive"
>relations not exactly in line with what is required by the organic
>molecule, which could be a source of mutations in organic molecules.
>
> Madrid, 10 August 1997.
>
>
>PS: I received today your circular dated Mon, 8 Sep 1997, on Principia
>Cybernetica News - July/August 1997.
>
____________________NEW_ADDRESS_________________________________________
Dr. Francis Heylighen, Systems Researcher fheyligh@vub.ac.be
CLEA, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel +32-2-6442677; Fax +32-2-6440744; http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html