Adjacency of the Possible: Teleology of Autocatalysis. Thought of the Day 140.0

Given a network of catalyzed chemical reactions, a (sub)set R of such reactions is called:

1. Reflexively autocatalytic (RA) if every reaction in R is catalyzed by at least one molecule involved in any of the reactions in R;
2. F-generated (F) if every reactant in R can be constructed from a small “food set” F by successive applications of reactions from R;
3. Reflexively autocatalytic and F-generated (RAF) if it is both RA and F.

The food set F contains molecules that are assumed to be freely available in the environment. Thus, an RAF set formally captures the notion of “catalytic closure”, i.e., a self-sustaining set supported by a steady supply of (simple) molecules from some food set….

Stuart Kauffman begins with the Darwinian idea of the origin of life in a biological ‘primordial soup’ of organic chemicals and investigates the possibility of one chemical substance to catalyze the reaction of two others, forming new reagents in the soup. Such catalyses may, of course, form chains, so that one reagent catalyzes the formation of another catalyzing another, etc., and self-sustaining loops of reaction chains is an evident possibility in the appropriate chemical environment. A statistical analysis would reveal that such catalytic reactions may form interdependent networks when the rate of catalyzed reactions per molecule approaches one, creating a self-organizing chemical cycle which he calls an ‘autocatalytic set’. When the rate of catalyses per reagent is low, only small local reaction chains form, but as the rate approaches one, the reaction chains in the soup suddenly ‘freeze’ so that what was a group of chains or islands in the soup now connects into one large interdependent network, constituting an ‘autocatalytic set’. Such an interdependent reaction network constitutes the core of the body definition unfolding in Kauffman, and its cyclic character forms the basic precondition for self-sustainment. ‘Autonomous agent’ is an autocatalytic set able to reproduce and to undertake at least one thermodynamic work cycle.

This definition implies two things: reproduction possibility, and the appearance of completely new, interdependent goals in work cycles. The latter idea requires the ability of the autocatalytic set to save energy in order to spend it in its own self-organization, in its search for reagents necessary to uphold the network. These goals evidently introduce a – restricted, to be sure – teleology defined simply by the survival of the autocatalytic set itself: actions supporting this have a local teleological character. Thus, the autocatalytic set may, as it evolves, enlarge its cyclic network by recruiting new subcycles supporting and enhancing it in a developing structure of subcycles and sub-sub-cycles. 

Kauffman proposes that the concept of ‘autonomous agent’ implies a whole new cluster of interdependent concepts. Thus, the autonomy of the agent is defined by ‘catalytic closure’ (any reaction in the network demanding catalysis will get it) which is a genuine Gestalt property in the molecular system as a whole – and thus not in any way derivable from the chemistry of single chemical reactions alone.

Kauffman’s definitions on the basis of speculative chemistry thus entail not only the Kantian cyclic structure, but also the primitive perception and action phases of Uexküll’s functional circle. Thus, Kauffman’s definition of the organism in terms of an ‘autonomous agent’ basically builds on an Uexküllian intuition, namely the idea that the most basic property in a body is metabolism: the constrained, organizing processing of high-energy chemical material and the correlated perception and action performed to localize and utilize it – all of this constituting a metabolic cycle coordinating the organism’s in- and outside, defining teleological action. Perception and action phases are so to speak the extension of the cyclical structure of the closed catalytical set to encompass parts of its surroundings, so that the circle of metabolism may only be completed by means of successful perception and action parts.

The evolution of autonomous agents is taken as the empirical basis for the hypothesis of a general thermodynamic regularity based on non-ergodicity: the Big Bang universe (and, consequently, the biosphere) is not at equilibrium and will not reach equilibrium during the life-time of the universe. This gives rise to Kauffman’s idea of the ‘adjacent possible’. At a given point in evolution, one can define the set of chemical substances which do not exist in the universe – but which is at a distance of one chemical reaction only from a substance already existing in the universe. Biological evolution has, evidently, led to an enormous growth of types of organic macromolecules, and new such substances come into being every day. Maybe there is a sort of chemical potential leading from the actually realized substances and into the adjacent possible which is in some sense driving the evolution? In any case, Kauffman claims the hypothesis that the biosphere as such is supercritical in the sense that there is, in general, more than one action catalyzed by each reagent. Cells, in order not to be destroyed by this chemical storm, must be internally subcritical (even if close to the critical boundary). But if the biosphere as such is, in fact, supercritical, then this distinction seemingly a priori necessitates the existence of a boundary of the agent, protecting it against the environment.

Advertisement

The Biological Kant. Note Quote.

The biological treatise takes as its object the realm of physics left out of Kant’s critical demarcations of scientific, that is, mathematical and mechanistic, physics. Here, the main idea was that scientifically understandable Nature was defined by lawfulness. In his Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, this idea was taken further in the following claim:

I claim, however, that there is only as much proper science to be found in any special doctrine on nature as there is mathematics therein, and further ‘a pure doctrine on nature about certain things in nature (doctrine on bodies and doctrine on minds) is only possible by means of mathematics’.

The basic idea is thus to identify Nature’s lawfulness with its ability to be studied by means of mathematical schemata uniting understanding and intuition. The central schema, to Kant, was numbers, so apt to be used in the understanding of mechanically caused movement. But already here, Kant is very well aware of a whole series of aspects of spontaneuosly experienced Nature is left out of sight by the concentration on matter in movement, and he calls for these further realms of Nature to be studied by a continuation of the Copernican turn, by the mind’s further study of the utmost limits of itself. Why do we spontaneously see natural purposes, in Nature? Purposiveness is wholly different from necessity, crucial to Kant’s definition of Nature. There is no reason in the general concept of Nature (as lawful) to assume that nature’s objects may serve each other as purposes. Nevertheless, we do not stop assuming just that. But what we do when we ascribe purposes to Nature is using the faculties of mind in another way than in science, much closer to the way we use them in the appreciation of beauty and art, the object of the first part of the book immediately before the treatment of teleological judgment. This judgment is characterized by a central distinction, already widely argued in this first part of the book: the difference between determinative and reflective judgments, respectively. While the judgment used scientifically to decide whether a specific case follows a certain rule in explanation by means of a derivation from a principle, and thus constitutes the objectivity of the object in question – the judgment which is reflective lacks all these features. It does not proceed by means of explanation, but by mere analogy; it is not constitutive, but merely regulative; it does not prove anything but merely judges, and it has no principle of reason to rest its head upon but the very act of judging itself. These ideas are now elaborated throughout the critic of teleological judgment.

In the section Analytik der teleologischen Urteilskraft, Kant gradually approaches the question: first is treated the merely formal expediency: We may ascribe purposes to geometry in so far as it is useful to us, just like rivers carrying fertile soils with them for trees to grow in may be ascribed purposes; these are, however, merely contingent purposes, dependent on an external telos. The crucial point is the existence of objects which are only possible as such in so far as defined by purposes:

That its form is not possible after mere natural laws, that is, such things which may not be known by us through understanding applied to objects of the senses; on the contrary that even the empirical knowledge about them, regarding their cause and effect, presupposes concepts of reason.

The idea here is that in order to conceive of objects which may not be explained with reference to understanding and its (in this case, mechanical) concepts only, these must be grasped by the non-empirical ideas of reason itself. If causes are perceived as being interlinked in chains, then such contingencies are to be thought of only as small causal circles on the chain, that is, as things being their own cause. Hence Kant’s definition of the Idea of a natural purpose:

an object exists as natural purpose, when it is cause and effect of itself.

This can be thought as an idea without contradiction, Kant maintains, but not conceived. This circularity (the small causal circles) is a very important feature in Kant’s tentative schematization of purposiveness. Another way of coining this Idea is – things as natural purposes are organized beings. This entails that naturally purposeful objects must possess a certain spatio-temporal construction: the parts of such a thing must be possible only through their relation to the whole – and, conversely, the parts must actively connect themselves to this whole. Thus, the corresponding idea can be summed up as the Idea of the Whole which is necessary to pass judgment on any empirical organism, and it is very interesting to note that Kant sums up the determination of any part of a Whole by all other parts in the phrase that a natural purpose is possible only as an organized and self-organizing being. This is probably the very birth certificate of the metaphysics of self-organization. It is important to keep in mind that Kant does not feel any vitalist temptation at supposing any organizing power or any autonomy on the part of the whole which may come into being only by this process of self-organization between its parts. When Kant talks about the forming power in the formation of the Whole, it is thus nothing outside of this self-organization of its parts.

This leads to Kant’s final definition: an organized being is that in which all that is alternating is ends and means. This idea is extremely important as a formalization of the idea of teleology: the natural purposes do not imply that there exists given, stable ends for nature to pursue, on the contrary, they are locally defined by causal cycles, in which every part interchangeably assumes the role of ends and means. Thus, there is no absolute end in this construal of nature’s teleology; it analyzes teleology formally at the same time as it relativizes it with respect to substance. Kant takes care to note that this maxim needs not be restricted to the beings – animals – which we spontaneously tend to judge as purposeful. The idea of natural purposes thus entails that there might exist a plan in nature rendering processes which we have all reasons to disgust purposeful for us. In this vision, teleology might embrace causality – and even aesthetics:

Also natural beauty, that is, its harmony with the free play of our epistemological faculties in the experience and judgment of its appearance can be seen in the way of objective purposivity of nature in its totality as system, in which man is a member.

An important consequence of Kant’s doctrine is that their teleology is so to speak secularized in two ways: (1) it is formal, and (2) it is local. It is formal because self-organization does not ascribe any special, substantial goal for organisms to pursue – other than the sustainment of self-organization. Thus teleology is merely a formal property in certain types of systems. This is why teleology is also local – it is to be found in certain systems when the causal chain form loops, as Kant metaphorically describes the cycles involved in self-organization – it is no overarching goal governing organisms from the outside. Teleology is a local, bottom-up, process only.

Kant does not in any way doubt the existence of organized beings, what is at stake is the possibility of dealing with them scientifically in terms of mechanics. Even if they exist as a given thing in experience, natural purposes can not receive any concept. This implies that biology is evident in so far as the existence of organisms cannot be doubted. Biology will never rise to the heights of science, its attempts at doing so are beforehand delimited, all scientific explanations of organisms being bound to be mechanical. Following this line of argument, it corresponds very well to present-day reductionism in biology, trying to take all problems of phenotypical characters, organization, morphogenesis, behavior, ecology, etc. back to the biochemistry of genetics. But the other side of the argument is that no matter how successful this reduction may prove, it will never be able to reduce or replace the teleological point of view necessary in order to understand the organism as such in the first place.

Evidently, there is something deeply unsatisfactory in this conclusion which is why most biologists have hesitated at adopting it and cling to either full-blown reductionism or to some brand of vitalism, subjecting themselves to the dangers of ‘transcendental illusion’ and allowing for some Goethe-like intuitive idea without any schematization. Kant tries to soften up the question by philosophical means by establishing an crossing over from metaphysics to physics, or, from the metaphysical constraints on mechanical physics and to physics in its empirical totality, including the organized beings of biology. Pure mechanics leaves physics as a whole unorganized, and this organization is sought to be established by means of mediating concepts’. Among them is the formative power, which is not conceived of in a vitalist substantialist manner, but rather a notion referring to the means by which matter manages to self-organize. It thus comprehends not only biological organization, but macrophysic solid matter physics as well. Here, he adds an important argument to the critic of judgment:

Because man is conscious of himself as a self-moving machine, without being able to further understand such a possibility, he can, and is entitled to, introduce a priori organic-moving forces of bodies into the classification of bodies in general and thus to distinguish mere mechanical bodies from self-propelled organic bodies.

Where Hegel Was, There Deconstruction Shall Be: The Dialectical Calculus Between Lukács and Laclau & Mouffe. Thought of the Day 81.0

Lukács would be the condensation of everything that is deemed politically regressive about the social theory of “the rationalist ‘dictatorship’ of Enlightenment” (Ernesto Laclau New Reflections on the Revolution of Our Time), of just about everything that the new social logic of postmodern culture brings into crisis. In this context – which is theoretically and politically hostile to the concept of totality – Laclau and Mouffe’s recasting of the Gramscian concept of hegemony is designed to avoid the Lukácsian conception of society as an “expressive totality”. For Lukács, a single principle is “expressed” in all social phenomena, so that every aspect of the social formation is integrated into a closed system that connects the forces and social relations of production to politics and the juridical apparatus, cultural forms and class-consciousness. By contrast, Laclau and Mouffe insist that the social field is an incomplete totality consisting of a multitude of transitory hegemonic “epicentres” and characterised by a plurality of competing discourses. The proliferation of democratic forms of struggle by the new social movements is thereby integrated into a pluralistic conception of the social field that emphasises the negativity and dispersion underlying all social identities. “Radical and plural democracy,” Laclau and Mouffe contend, represents a translation of socialist strategy into the detotalising paradigm of postmodern culture.

For Lukács, the objective of a new conception of praxis is to establish the dialectical unity of theory and practice, so as to demonstrate that the proletariat, as the operator of a transparent praxis, is the identical subject-object of the historical process. The subject of history is therefore the creator of the contents of the social totality, and to the extent that this subject attains self-reflexivity, it is also the conscious generator of social forms. This enables Lukács to emphasise the revolutionary character of class conscious as coextensive with revolutionary action. Laclau and Mouffe’s concept of discursive practice has the same effect – with this difference, that Laclau and Mouffe deny that discursive practices can become wholly transparent to social agents (Ernesto Laclau, Chantal Mouffe Hegemony and Socialist Strategy Towards a Radical Democratic Politics). By reinscribing the concept of praxis within a deconstruction of Marxism, Laclau and Mouffe theorise a new concept of discursive practice that “must pierce the entire material density of the multifarious institutions” upon which it operates, since it has as its objective a decisive break with the material/mental dichotomy. “Rejection of the thought/reality dichotomy,” they propose, “must go together with a re-thinking and interpenetration of the categories which have up until now been considered exclusive of one another”.

Critically, this means a fusion of the hitherto distinct categories of (subjective) discourse and (objective) structure in the concept of “hegemonic articulation”. This theoretical intervention is simultaneously a decisive political advance, because it now becomes clear that, for instance, “the equivalence constituted through communist enumeration [of the alliance partners within a bid for political hegemony] is not the discursive expression of a real movement constituted outside of discourse; on the contrary, this enumerative discourse is a real force which contributes to the moulding and constitution of social relations”. In other words, the opposition between theory and practice, discursive practice and structural conditions, is resolved by the new theory of hegemonic articulation. The operator of these discursive practices – the new agent of social transformation – is at once the instigator of social relations and the formulator of discourses on the social.

The most significant difference between Lukács and Laclau and Mouffe is their respective evaluations of Hegelian dialectics. Where, for Lukács, a return to dialectical philosophy held out the prospect of a renewal of Marxian social theory, for Laclau and Mouffe it is “dialectical necessity” that constitutes the major obstacle to a radical postmodern politics. Laclau and Mouffe’s fundamental objection to dialectics is to the substitution of a logically necessary sequence for the contingency of the historical process. They applaud the dialectical dissolution of fixity but deplore the supposed inversion of contingency into necessity and the imposition of a teleology of reconciliation. Hegel’s work, therefore, “appears as located in a watershed between two epochs” and is evaluated as “ambiguous” rather than simply pernicious. On the one hand, Laclau and Mouffe reject the Hegelian notion that “history and society … have a rational and intelligible structure”. This is regarded as an Enlightenment conception fundamentally incompatible with the postmodern emphasis on contingency, finitude and historicity. On the other hand, however, “this synthesis contains all the seeds of its own dissolution, as the rationality of history can only be affirmed at the price of introducing contradiction into the field of reason”. Once the impossibility of including contradiction within rationality is asserted, it then becomes clear that the “logical” transitions between historical “stages” are secured contingently:

It is precisely here that Hegel’s modernity lies: for him, identity is never positive and closed in itself but is constituted as transition, relation, difference. If, however, Hegel’s logical relations become contingent transitions, the connections between them cannot be fixed as moments of an underlying or sutured totality. This means that they are articulations.

This is not a rejection of Hegel but a re-interpretation. Interpreted in this light, Hegel’s “logical” relations are the language games that frame social practices – rather than formally rational structures deducible a priori – and their “transitions” are only the contingent connections created by political articulations. In opposition to the logically necessary sequence of closed totalities, Laclau and Mouffe insist on a historically contingent series of open discursive formations. Resolutely contesting the category of the totality, Laclau and Mouffe declare that:

The incomplete character of every totality leads us to abandon, as a terrain of analysis, the premise of “society” as a sutured and self-defined totality. “Society” is not a valid object of discourse.

So where Lukács once declared that “the category of the totality is the bearer of the principle of revolution in science”, Laclau and Mouffe now announce, by contrast, that totality is an illusion because “‘society’ as a unitary and intelligible object which grounds its own partial processes is an impossibility”. Where Hegel was, there deconstruction shall be – or so it would seem.

Abstraction as Dissection of a Flat “Ontology”: The Illusiveness of Levels (Paper)

DeLanda:

…while an ontology based on relations between general types and particular instances is hierarchical, each level representing a different ontological category (organism, species, genera) [or strings, quarks, baryons], an approach in terms of interacting parts and emergent wholes leads to a flat ontology, one made exclusively of unique, singular individuals, differing in spatio-temporal scale but not in ontological status.

The following discussion, however, seeks to go further than DeLanda’s account of hierarchy, extending it to all entities of spatio-temporal entities, thus the interjection of “strings, quarks, baryons” into the quote. That this extension is natural should be clear once van Fraassen’s role in this level-denying consilience. Furthermore, van Fraassen’s account will be employed to illustrate why any level-like organization attributed to the components of an explanation has no bearing on the explanation, and arises due to two things:

1) erroneously clumping together all types of belief statements into a single branch of philosophy that deals with knowledge, and

2) attempting to stratify the causal thicket that is the world, so as conform the produce of scientific enterprise with monism and fundamentalist predilections.

Finally, there is one other way in which the account differs from DeLanda’s flat ontology, when touching upon Kant’s antinomy of teleology: the idea that levels of mechanisms telescopes to a flat ontology, as every part and whole enjoys the same status in a scientific explanation, and only differ in size.

Figure: The larger arrows point toward the conclusion of consilience. The smaller arrows suggest relationships that create cooperation toward the thesis. The blue bubbles represent the positive web of notions that cohere, and the red bubbles are those notions that are excluded from web. The red arrows indicate where the ideas not included in the web arise, and the totality of this paper works toward a final explication as to why these are to be excluded. There are a few thin blue lines that are not included, because they would make a mess of the image, such as a line connecting abstraction and James’ pragmatism. However, the paper (Abstraction as Dissection of a Flat Ontology. through) endeavors to make these connections clear, for example, quoting James to show that James presents an idea that seems a precursor to Cartwright’s notion of abstraction. (Note: Yellow lines are really blue lines, but are yellow to avoid confusion that might ensue from blue lines passing through blue bubbles. Green lines are to indicate additivity. The red lines denote notions not connected to the web, yet bear some relation to ideas in the web.) 

Teleology versus Purpose. Drunken Risibility.

Does the universe has any purpose whatsoever? Scientific and materialist ontologies have always prided themselves (in the modern sense of time) on the efficiency of causation rather than on the finality of causation. As was written many many posts ago, the quantum entanglement is smart enough to dupe us into accepting quasi-causation, or from the future, it is possible to determine the past, or more strictly, future determines the past. These physical determinations are always being apprehended under the garb of speculations, and if wants to get even with efficient and final causation, the very jargon teleology needs to be crafted accordingly. One way is to distinguish between the teleology and purpose with some conscious goal in mind. other is to look seriously at Peircean semiotic realism, where both efficient and final causation are within the legal ambit of being accepted.

… the non-recognition of final causation … has been and still is productive of more philosophical error and nonsense than any or every other source of error or nonsense . If there is any goddess of nonsense , this must be her haunt. — CSP

Autopoiesis & Pre-Determined Design: An Abhorrent Alliance

Self-organization has also been conflated with the idea of emergence, and indeed one can occur without the other, thus nullifying the thesis of strong reliance between the two. Moreover, western philosophical traditions have been quite vocal in their skepticism about emergence and order within a structure, if there isn’t a presence of an external agency, either in the form of God, or in some a priori principle. But these traditions are indeed in for a rude shock, since there is nothing mystical about emergence and even self-organization (in cases where they are thought to be in conflated usage). Not just an absence of mysticism characterizing self-organization, but, even stochasticity seems to be a missing link in the said principle. Although, examples supporting the case vary according to the diverse environmental factors and complexity inherent in the system, the ease of working through becomes apparent, if self-organization or autopoiesis is viewed as a the capacity exhibited by the complex systems in enabling them to change or develop the internal structure spontaneously, while adapting and manipulating with their environment in the ongoing process. This could very well be the starting point in line with a working definition of autopoiesis. A clear example of this kind would be the human brain (although, brains of animals could suffice this equally well), which shows a great proclivity to learn, to remember in the midst of its development. Language is another instance, since in its development, a recognition of its structure is mandated, and this very structure in its attempt to survive and develop further under circumstances that are variegated, must show allegiance to adaptability. Even if, language is guided by social interactions between humans, the cultural space conducive for its development would have strong affinity to a generalized aspect of linguistic system. Now, let us build up on the criteria of determining what makes the system autopoietic, and thereby see what are the features that are generally held to be in common with autopoietic systems.

Self-organization abhors predetermined design, thus enabling the system to dynamically adapt to the regular/irregular changes in the environment in a nonlinear adherence. Even if emergence can occur without the underlying principle of self- organization, and vice versa, self-organization is in itself an emergent property of the system as a whole, with the individual components acting on local information and general principles. This is crucial, since the macroscopic behavior emerges out of microscopic interactions that in themselves are carriers of scant information, and in turn have a direct component of complexity associated with them when viewed microscopically. This complexity also gets reflected in their learning procedures, since for systems that are self-organizing, it is only the experiential aspects from previous encounters compared with the recent ones that help. And what would this increase in complexity entail? As a matter of fact, complexity is a reversal of entropy at the local level, thus putting the system at the mercy of a point of saturation. Moreover, since the systems are experiential, they are historical and hence based on memory. If such is the case, then it is safe to point out that these systems are diachronic in nature, and hence memory forms a vital component of emergence. Memory as anamnesis is unthinkable without selective amnesia, for piling up information does trade off with relevance of information simultaneously. For information that goes under the name of irrelevant, is simply jettisoned, and the space created in this manner is utilized for cases pertaining to representation. Not only representation sort of makes a back door entry here, it is also convenient for this space to undergo a systematic patterning that is the hallmark of these systems. Despite the patterns being the hallmark of self-organization, it should in no way be taken to mean that these systems are stringently teleological, because, the introduction of nonlinear functions that guide these systems introduce at the same time the shunning off of a central authority, or anthropomorphic centrality, or any external designer. Linear functions could partake in localized situations, but at the macroscopic level, they lose their vitality, and if complex systems stick on to their loyalty towards linear functions, they fade away in the process of trying hard to avoid negotiating this allegiance. Just as allegiance to nonlinearity is important for self-organization, so is an allegiance to anti-reductionism. That is due to the fact of micro-level units having no knowledge about the macro-level effects, while at the same time, these macro-level effects manifest themselves in clusters of micro-level units, thus ruling out any sort of independent level- based descriptions. The levels are stacked, intertwined, and most importantly, any resistance to reductionist discourse in trying to explicate the emergence within the system has no connotation for resistance to materialist properties themselves emerging.

Clusters of information flow into the system from the external world that have an influencing impact on the internal makeup of the system and in turn triggers off interactions in tune with Hebb’s law to alter weights. With the process in full swing, two possibilities could take shape, viz, formation of a stable system of weights based on the regularity of a stable cluster, and association between sets of these stable clusters as and when they are identified. This self-organizing principle is not only based on learning, but at the same time also cautious with sidelining those that are potentially futile for the system. Now, when such information flows into the system, sensors and/or transducers are set up, that obligate varying levels of intensity of activity to some neurons and nodes over others. This is of course to be expected, and the way to come to terms with a regulated pattern of activity is the onus of adjustments of weights associated with neurons/nodes. A very important factor lies in the fact of the event denoting the flow of information from the external world into the system to occur regularly, or at least occasionally, lest the self-organizing or autopoietic system should fail to record in memory such occurrences and eventually fade out. Strangely, the patterns are arrived at without any reliance upon differentiated micro-level units to begin with. In parallel with neural networks, the nodes and neurons possess random values for their weights. The levels housing these micro- level nodes or neurons are intertwined to increase their strength, and if there is any absence of self-persisting positive feedback, the autopoietic system can in no way move away from the dictates of undifferentiated states it began with. As the nodes are associated with random values of weights, there is a race to show superiority, thus arresting the contingent limitless growth under the influence of limitless resources, thereby giving the emerging structure some meaningful essence and existence. Intertwining of levels also results in consensus building, and therefore effectuates meaning as accorded to these emergent structures of autpoietic systems. But this consensus building could lead astray the system from complexity, and hence to maintain the status quo, it is imperative for these autopoietic systems to have a correctional apparatus. The correctional apparatus spontaneously breaks the symmetry that leads the system away from complexity by either introducing haphazard fault lines in connections, or chaotic behaviors resulting from sensitivity to minor fluctuations as a result of banking on nonlinearity. Does this correctional apparatus in any way impact memory gained through the process of historicality? Apparently not. This is because of the distributed nature of memory storage, which is largely due to weights that are non-correspondingly symbolic. The weights that show their activity at the local scale are associated with memory storage through traces, and it is only due to this fact that information gets distributed over the system generating robustness. With these characteristic features, autopoietic systems only tend towards organizing their structures to the optimum, with safely securing the complexity expected within the system.

Complexity Theory and Philosophy: A Peace Accord

Complexity has impacted fields diverse from the one it originated in, i.e. science. It has touched the sociological domains, and organizational sciences, but sadly, it has not had much of a say in mainstream academic philosophy. In sociology, John Urry (2003) examines the ideas of chaos and complexity in carrying out analyses of global processes. He does this, because he believes that systems are balanced between order and chaos, and that, there is no teleological move towards any state of equilibrium, as the events that pilot the system are not only unpredictable, but also irreversible at the same time. Such events rupture the space-time regularity with their dimension of unpredictability that was thought of as characterizing hitherto known sociological discursive practices. A highly significant contribution that comes along with such an analyses is the distinguishing between what Urry aptly calls “global networks” and “global fluids”. Global fluids are a topographical space used to describe the de-territorialized movement of people, information, objects, finances in an undirected, nonlinear mode, and in a way are characteristic of emergentism and hybridization. The topographies of global networks and global fluids interact in complex manner to give rise to emergent properties that define systems as always on the edge of chaos, pregnant with unpredictability.

Cognitive science and evolutionary theory have been inspirational for a lot of philosophical investigations and have also benefited largely from complexity theory. If such is the case, the perplexing thing is complexity theory’s impact in philosophy, which has not had major inroads to make. Why could this be so? Let us ponder this over.

Analytical philosophy has always been concerned with analysis, and logical constructs that are to be stringently followed. These rules and regulations take the domain of philosophical investigations falling under the rubric of analytical tradition away from holism, uncertainty, unpredictability and subjectivity that are characteristics of complexity. The reason why this could be case is attributable to complexity theory as developed on the base of mathematics and computational theories, which, somehow is not the domain of academic philosophy dealing with social sciences and cultural studies in present days, but is confined to discussions and debates amongst philosophers of science (biology is an important branch here), mathematics and technology. Moreover, the debates and deliberations have concerned themselves with the unpredictable and uncertain implications as derived from the vestiges of chaos theory and not complexity theory per se. This is symptomatic of the fact that a lot of confusion rests upon viewing these two path-breaking theories as synonymous, which, incidentally is a mistake, as the former happens at best to be a mere subset of the latter. An ironical fate encountered philosophy, since it dealt with complex notions of language, without actually admitting to the jargon, and technical parlance of complexity theory. If philosophy lets complexity make a meaningful intercourse into its discursive practices, then it could be beneficial to the alliance. And the branch of philosophy that is making use of this intervention and alliance at present is post-modern philosophy ++++

The works of Freud and Saussure as furthered by Lacan and Derrida, not only accorded fecundity for a critique of modernity, but, also opened up avenues for a meaningful interaction with complexity. French theory at large was quite antagonistic to modernist claims of reducing the diverse world to essential features for better comprehensibility, and this essentially lent for its affinity to complexity. Even if Derrida never explicitly used the complexity parlance in his corpus, there appears to be a strong sympathy towards the phenomenon via his take on post-structuralism. On the other hand, Lyotard, in setting his arguments for post-modern conditions of knowledge was ecstatic about paralogy as a defining feature, which is no different from the way complexity, connectionism and distributed systems would harbor.

Even Deleuze and Guattari are closer to the complex approach through their notions of rhizomes, which are non-reductive, non-hierarchical, and multiplicities oriented connections in data representations and interpretations, and are characterized by horizontal connectivities, as contrasted with arborescent models that find their characterizations in vertical and linear determinations. The ideas are further developed by De Landa (2006), where the attempt is to define a new ontology that could be utilized by social scientists. Components that make up the assemblages are characterized along two axes viz, material, explicating on the variable roles components might undergo, and territorializng/deterritorializing, explicating on processes components might be involved with.

Relations of exteriority define components, implying that components are self-subsistent, or that there is never a loss of identity for them, during the process of being unplugged from one assemblage to be plugged into another. This relationship between the assemblages and components is nonlinearly and complexly defined, since assemblages are affected by lower level ones, but could also potentially act on to these components affecting adaptations in them. This is so similar to the way distributed systems are principally modeled. Then why has philosophy at large not shown much impact from complexity despite the French theoretical affinities with the latter?

Chaos theory is partly to blame here, for it has twisted the way a structure of a complex system is understood. The systems have a non-linear operational tendencies, and this has obfuscated the notion of meaning as lying squarely on relativism. The robustness of these systems, when looked at in an illuminating manner from the French theoretical perspective could be advantageous to get rid of ideas about complex systems as based on a knife’s edge, despite being nonlinearly determinable. If the structure of the system were a problematic, then defining limits and boundaries was no easy job. What is the boundary between the system and the environment? Is it rigorously drawn and followed, or is it a mere theoretical choice and construct? These are valid question, which philosophy found it difficult to come to terms with. These questions gained intensity with the introduction of self-organizational systems and/or autopoietic ones. Classical and modern philosophies either had to dismiss these ideas as chimerical, or it had to close off its own analyzing methods in dealing with these issues, and both of these approaches had a detrimental effect of isolating the discipline of philosophy from the cultural domains in which such notions were making positive interventions and inroads. It could safely be said that French theory, in a way tried its rescue mission, and picked up momentum in success. The major contribution from continental philosophy post-60s was framing solutions. Framing, as a schema of interpretation helped comprehending and responding to events and enabled systems and contexts to constitute one another, thus positing a resolution on the boundaries and limits issues that had plagued hitherto known philosophical doctrines.

The notion of difference, so central to modernism was a problematic that needed to be resolved. Such was never a problem within French theory, but was a tonic to be consumed along side complexity, to address socio-economic and political issues. Deleuze (1994), for example, in his metaphysical treatise, sought a critique of representation, and a systematic inversion of the traditional metaphysical notions of identity and difference. Identities were not metaphysically or logically prior to differences, and identities in whatever categories, are pronounced by their derivation from differences. In other words, forms, categories, apperception, and resemblances fail to attain their differences in themselves. And, as Deleuze (2003: 32) says,

If philosophy has a positive and direct relation to things, it is only insofar as philosophy claims to grasp the thing itself, according to what it is, in its difference from everything it is not, in other words, in its internal difference.

But Deleuzean thesis on metaphysics does make a political intervention, like when he says,

The more our daily life appears standardized, stereotyped, and subject to an accelerated reproduction of objects of consumption, the more art must be injected into it in order to extract from it that little difference which plays simultaneously between other levels of repetition, and even in order to make the two extremes resonate — namely, the habitual series of consumption and the instinctual series of destruction and death. (Deleuze 1994: 293).(1)

Tackling the complexity within the social realm head-on does not lie in extrapolating convenient generalities, and thereafter trying to fathom how finely they fit together, but, rather in apprehending the relational schema of the network, within which, individuals emerge as subjects, objects and systems that are capable of grasping the real things.(2) 

One major criticism leveled against complexity is that it is sympathetic to relativism, just like most of the French theoretical thought is. Whether, this accusation has any substance to it could be measured by the likes of circular meaningless debates like the Sokal hoax. The hoax was platitudinous to say the least, and vague at best. And why would this be so? Sokal in his article, “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, incorporated the vocabulary of his specialized discipline to unearth the waywardness of usage by the French theorists. This, for Sokal was fashionable nonsense, or an act of making noise. He takes the French theorists to task for a liberal use of terms like chaos, complexity, quantum, relativity, gender, difference, topology, and deconstruction, without any proper insight. Who would be vague in the Sokal affair? The physicist, or the bunch of French theorists? Such an issue could be tackled on an intelligibility concern. Intelligibility is a result of differentiation and not a guarantee of truth-giving process (Cilliers 2005: 262).

Clearly communicated does not give any indisputable identity to a concept. The only way, (such a meaning can) be meaningful is through limitations being set on such communications, an ethical choice once again. These limitations enable knowledge to come into existence, and this must be accepted de facto. In a parallel metaphoric with complexity, these limitations or constraints are sine qua non for autopoiesis to make an entry. Cilliers (2005: 264) is quite on target, when he lays down the general schema for complexity, if it is, aligned with notions of chaos, randomness and noise, the accusations of relativism and vagueness will start to hold water. It is aligned with notions of structure as the result of contingent constraints, we can make claims about complex systems, which are clear and comprehensible, despite the fact that the claims themselves are historically contingent.

Undoubtedly, complexity rides on modesty. But, the accusations against this position only succeed to level complexity as weak, a gross mistake in itself. Let us take Derrida here, as read by Sweetman (1999). Sweetman cites Derrida as an ideal post-modernist, and thereafter launches an attack on his works as confusing aesthetics with metaphysics, as mistakenly siding with assertions over arguments in philosophy, as holding Derrida for moral and epistemological relativism and, self-contradictory with a tinge of intellectual arrogance. Such accusations, though addressed by Derrida and his scholars at various times, nevertheless find parallels in complexity, where, the split is between proponents of mathematical certainty in dealing with complexity on the one hand, and proponents of metaphorical proclivities in dealing with the phenomenon on the other. So, how would relativism make an entry here? Being a relativist is as good as swimming in paradoxical intellectual currents, and such a position is embraced due to a lack of foundational basis for knowledge, if nothing more. The counter-argument against the relativistic stance of complexity could be framed in a simplistic manner, by citing the case of limited knowledge as not relativistic knowledge. If these forms of knowledge were equated in any manner, it would only help close doors on investigations.

A look at Luhmann’s use of autopoiesis in social theory is obligated here. This is necessitated by the fact of autopoiesis getting directly imported from biological sciences, to which, even Varela had objections, though intellectually changing tracks. Luhmann considers the leaving out of self-referentiality as a problematic in the work of Chileans (Maturana + Varela), since for Luhmann systems are characterized by general patterns which can just be described as making a distinction and crossing the boundary of the distinction [which] enables us to ask questions about society as a self-observing systems[s] (Hayles, K., Luhmann, N., Rasch, W., Knodt, E. & Wolfe, C., 1995 Autumn). Such a reaction from Luhmann is in his response to a cautious undertaking of any import directly from biological and psychological sciences to describe society and social theory. Reality is always distorted through the lens of perception and, this blinds humans from seeing things-in-themselves (the Kantian noumenon). One could visualize this within the analytical tradition of language as a problematic, involving oppositional thinking within the binary structure of linguistic terms themselves. What is required is an evolutionary explanation of how systems survive to the extent that they can learn to handle the inside/outside difference within the system, and within the context of their own operations, since they can never operate outside the system (Hayles, K., Luhmann, N., Rasch, W., Knodt, E. & Wolfe, C., 1995 Autumn). For the social theory to be effective, what requires deconstruction is the deconstruction of the grand tautological claim of autopoiesis, or the unity of the system as produced by the system itself. Luhmann tells us that a methodology that undertakes such a task must do this empirically by identifying the operations which produce and reproduce the unity of the system (Luhmann 1992). This is a crucial point, since the classical/traditional questions as regards the problem of reference as conditioning meaning and truth, are the distinctions between the subject and the object. Luhmann thinks of these questions as quasi-questions, and admonishes a replacement by self-reference/external-reference for any meaningful transformation to take effect. In his communications theory(3), he states flatly that as a system, it depends upon “introducing the difference between system and environment into the system” as the internal split within the system itself that allows it to make the distinction to begin its operative procedures to begin with (Luhmann 1992: 1420). The self-reference/external-reference distinction is a contingent process, and is open to temporal forms of difference. How to define the operation that differentiates the system and organizes the difference between system and environment while maintaining reciprocity between dependence and independence is a question that demands a resolution. The breakthrough for autopoietic systems is provided by the notion of structural coupling, since a renunciation of the idea of overarching causality on the one hand, and the retention of the idea of highly selective connections between systems and environments is effected here. Structural coupling maintains this reciprocity between dependence and independence. Moreover, autopoietic systems are defined by the way they are, by their mode of being in the world, and by the way they overcome or encounter entropy in the world. In other words, a self-perpetuating system performing operational closure continuously are autopoietic systems that organize dynamic stability.

Even if the concepts of complexity have not traveled far and wide into the discipline of philosophy, the trends are on the positive side. Developments in cognitive sciences and consciousness studies have a far reaching implications on philosophy of mind, as does in research in science that helps redefine the very notion of life. These researches are carried out within the spectrum of complexity theory, and therefore, there is a lot of scope for optimism. Complexity theory is still in the embryonic stage, for it is a theory of the widest possible extent for our understanding the world that we inhabit. Though, there are roadblocks along the way, it should in no way mean that it is the end of the road for complexity, but only a beginning in a new and novel manner.

Complexity theory as imbibed within adaptive systems has a major role in evolutionary doctrines. To add to this, the phenomenon of French Theory has incited creative and innovative ways of looking at philosophy, where residues of dualism and reductionism still rest, and resist any challenges whatsoever. One of the ways through which complexity and philosophy could come closer is, when the latter starts withdrawing its investigations into the how- ness of something, and starts to seriously incorporate the why-ness of it. The how- ness still seems to be arrested within the walls of reductionism, mechanicism, modernism, and the pillars of Newtonian science. So, an ontological reduction of all phenomenon under the governance of deterministic laws is the indelible mark, even if epistemologically, a certain guideline of objectivity seems apparent. What really is missed out on in this process is the creativity, as world in particular and universe in general is describable as a mechanism following clockwork. Such a view held sway for most the modern era, but with the advent of scientific revolutions in the 20th century, things began to look awry. Relativity theory, quantum mechanics, chaos, complexity, and recently string/M-theory were powerful enough in their insights to clean off the hitherto promising and predictable scientific ventures. One view at quantum mechanics/uncertainty and chaos/non-linear dynamics was potent to dislodge predictability from science. This was followed in succession by systems theory and cybernetics, which were instrumental in highlighting the scientific basis for holism and emergence, and showing equally well that knowledge was intrinsically subjective. Not just that, autopoiesis clarified the picture of regularity and organization as not given, but, rather dependent on a dynamically emergent tangle of conflicting forces and random fluctuations, a process very rightly referred to by Prigogine and Stengers (1984) as “order out of chaos”. In very insightful language, Heylighen, Cilliers and Gershenson (2007) pin their hopes on these different approaches, which are now starting to become integrated under the heading of “complexity science”. It’s central paradigm is the multi-agent system: a collection of autonomous components whose local interactions give rise to a global order. Agents are intrinsically subjective and uncertain about the consequences of their actions, yet they generally manage to self-organize into an emergent, adaptive system. Thus uncertainty and subjectivity should no longer be viewed negatively, as the loss of the absolute order of mechanicism, but positively, as factors of creativity, adaptation and evolution….Although a number of (mostly post-modern) philosophers have expressed similar sentiments, the complexity paradigm still needs to be assimilated by academic philosophy.

Such a need is a requisite for complexity to become more aware about how modeling techniques could be made more robust, and for philosophy to understand and resolve some hitherto unaddressed, but perennial problems.

———————————————————–

1  The political implications of such a thesis is rare, but forceful. To add to the quote above, there are other quotes as well, that deliberate on socio-political themes. Like,

“We claim that there are two ways to appeal to ‘necessary destructions’: that of the poet, who speaks in the name of a creative power, capable of overturning all orders and representations in order to affirm Difference in the state of permanent revolution which characterizes eternal return; and that of the politician, who is above all concerned to deny that which ‘differs,’ so as to conserve or prolong an established historical order.” (Deleuze 1994: 53).

and,

“Real revolutions have the atmosphere of fétes. Contradiction is not the weapon of the proletariat but, rather, the manner in which the bourgeoisie defends and preserves itself, the shadow behind which it maintains its claim to decide what the problems are.” (Deleuze 1994: 268).

2 It should however be noted, that only immanent philosophies of the sort Deleuze propagates, the processes of individuation could be accounted for. Moreover, once such an aim is attained, regularities in the world are denied any eternal and universal validation.

3 He defines communication as “a kind of autopoetic network of operations which continually organizes what we seek, the coincidence of self-reference (utterance) and external reference (information)” (1992: 1424). He details this out saying,

“Communication comes about by splitting reality through a highly artificial distinction between utterance and information, both taken as contingent events within an ongoing process that recursively uses the results of previous steps and anticipates further ones”. (1992: 1424).

Bibliography

Ciliers, P. (2005) Complexity, Deconstruction and Relativism. In Theory, Culture & Society, Vol. 22 (5). pp. 255 – 267.

De Landa, M. (2006) New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum.

Deleuze, G. (1994) Difference and Repetition. Translated by Patton, P. New York: Columbia University Press.

—————- (2003) Desert Islands and Other Texts (1953-1974). Translated by Taormina, M. Los Angeles: Semiotext(e).

Hayles, K., Luhmann, N., Rasch, W., Knodt, E. & Wolfe, C. (1995 Autumn) Theory of a Different Order: A Conversation with Katherine Hayles and Niklas Luhmann. In Cultural Critique, No. 31, The Politics of Systems and Environments, Part II. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Heylighen, F., Cilliers, P., and Gershenson, C. (2007) The Philosophy of Complexity. In Bogg, J. & Geyer, R. (eds), Complexity, Science and Society. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing.

Luhmann, N (1992) Operational Closure and Structural Coupling: The Differentiation of the Legal System. Cardoza Law Review Vol. 13.

Lyotard, J-F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by Bennington, G. & Massumi, B. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Prigogine, I. and Stengers, I. (1984) Order out of Chaos. New York: Bantam Books.

Sweetman, B. (1999) Postmodernism, Derrida and Différance: A Critique. In International Philosophical Quarterly XXXIX (1)/153. pp. 5 – 18.

Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity. Cambridge: Polity Press.