Via Patrick Hoverstadt on LinkedIn – who says:
For all those who still believe the old myth that VSM is difficult to get across, this is from Nareg Karekinian training farmers in Armenia to use VSM on an agricultural development project.
Author Archives: antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor
The Boundary Triage: A Systemic Leadership Tool
Our Theory of Change « The Berkana Institute
Theory of Change
The two loops model has been a fundamental piece of The Berkana Institute’s theory of change. As one system culminates and starts to collapse, isolated alternatives slowly begin to arise and give way to the new. In this video Deborah Frieze, Berkana’s former co-president, explains the two loops theory and speaks about the way that our work to name, connect, nourish and illuminate has fit into this model. She also identifies some of the different roles we might play to hospice the dying system, usher in the alternative system and make clear the choice between the two.
We believe that no universal solution exists for the challenges of this time: increased poverty and disease, failing large-scale systems, ecological degradation. But widespread impact does become possible when people working at the local level are able to learn from one another, practice together and share learning with communities everywhere. We have observed that large-scale change emerges when local actions get connected globally while preserving their deeply local culture, flavor and form. And we have called this trans-local learning.
[Another explanation in more words at https://medium.com/@brittneebond/two-loops-model-9a3d52c7da4e ]
Two Loops Model
Exploring how systems change.
The Two Loops by Margaret Wheatley and the Berkana Institute has shaped the way I work with organizations. I’ll share my notes here on the model so you guys can keep passing it on.
Today we are living with the strong remnants of what’s called the Newtonian world view -> a mechanistic view.
Basically, if something breaks in our societal systems, we separate it into parts, analyze them, find the faulty part and switch it out for a better one. Except that doesn’t work. Rarely does it result in the kind of change leaders hope for. Instead, they were confronted by 8 new problems caused by their initial solution (and the initial solution might also be back and bigger this time.)
We can’t plan to avoid these consequences because we can’t see all the connections below the service.
When we take a step back, we realize we’re tugging at webs of relationships that are seldom visible… but always there.
In the last 100 years, we’ve progressed to realize a couple key points:
- Our world view is constantly changing
- Our world is quite adept to change
- Living things operate differently than mechanical things
This mechanistic world view doesn’t work because:
Humans don’t function like machines.
That’s why we should now look at a new systems model called Two Loops.
It tells the story of how systems dies and new systems emerge constantly. It works on all levels and isn’t linear. As systems ascend and become more the more dominant system, they become more powerful and entrenched.
Using the fossil fuel economy as an example:
- Oil was discovered
- We found we could use it as an energy source
- Over time the world economy was structured around fossil fuels
At the top of their game, life was great! The money was rolling in and the economy was booming. The people who hold this system up and fight to protect it are called stewards. They are comfortable in an established system. Stewards try to maintain the system as best they can for what they feel is the greater good of the system they are serving. (They are keeping it stable for the rest of us.)
All systems eventually begin to teeter and start to lose their significance. They enter hospice when they start to decline and are on their way to death. (We can only live off fossil fuels until it kills our climate or we run out of them.)
An interesting movement happens right at the peak of every system: some people drop out. (They realize as a fact that fossil fuels are a limited resource.) These pioneers walk out to start a new system. These pioneers look at the way things are, the deeply held beliefs that underpin the current system, and see that another way is possible.
This is a radical act; they are leaving the comfort of an established system at it’s peak and going alone to start a new one.
Ok, so now you have a bunch of divergents alone at the beginning of the new loop. It can be a really lonely time (picture scientists in their basements working on solar panels). What do they need to do to build this new system? To create a new movement? They need to find each other.
THey need to name themselves. They need to be able to google themselves (renewable energy, green economy, etc.)
Now we know what we are- next we need to connect with each other. We need to build a network and build social capital.
Once connection happens on a regular basis and is centered around progressive action, it becomes a community of practice. This includes failing forward together and upwards as the new system continues to emerge and build. It’s also a place to nourish the system so it can keep growing. New systems need: time, space, money, expertise and skill building.
Once the new system is on the upward swing, it hits an illumination stage (fossil fuel cars will be banned by 2040 in most European countries). This is where we tell the success stories to inspire the people in the old system to come over and transition into a new way of living. When, how and to whom we illuminate is a careful dance. Timing is everything.
BCSSS | Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science
The Center
The Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science (BCSSS) is an Austrian independent research institute, internationally acknowledged as an ambassador for the systems science heritage and present state-of-the-art applied systems research.
The Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science focuses on the Foundations of Systems Science, exploring and explaining the nature of the world, and Systems Design, understanding and deploying change in this world.
The objective of the BCSSS is to inspire the development of systems science by fostering systems research and supporting systems thinking. Given the global challenges of today, systems science is needed more than ever.
In particular, it revisits the General Systems Theory (GST) as founded by Ludwig von Bertalanffy and others in order to reassess it in the light of today’s global challenges and to illuminate the course of development systems science has taken since.
- We execute and support use-inspired basic research projectsfocusing on the foundations of systems science, systems design and complexity management towards systemic sustainable innovative solutions.
- We support the next generation of systems researchers with scholarships and awards.
- We administrate the archive of Ludwig von Bertalanffy and other collections which are of interest to the systems movement and open the heritage to the public.
- We execute and support international scientific forums like the European Meetings on Cybernetics and Systems Research (EMCSR) to foster global networks between researchers and practitioners.
- We disseminate systems knowledge by executing and supporting lectures and workshops.
- We disseminate systems knowledge by publishingthe book series Systems in co-operation with systems engineers and the Open Access Journal Systema: connecting matter, life, culture and technology.
The association by Austrian law is an active member of the International Federation for Systems Research (IFSR), the largest umbrella organization in the field of systems science.
[this is the front page, click through headline link to find more. I found this through Gene Bellinger, who posted the link to Maria Lenzi and Helene Finidori’s Systems Science and Pattern Literacy group on linkedin:
http://www.bcsss.org/research/fields-and-groups/systems-science-and-pattern-literacy/%5D
Von Clausewitz’s Center of Gravity concept
Sjon van ’t Hof is always worth reading, and this is no exception.
And its possible relevance to systems thinking
Von Clausewitz, the seminal 19th century Prussian military theorist, famously wrote that war is merely “the continuation of policy [with the addition of] other means” (mit Einmischung anderer Mitteln). This suggests that war is essentially about politics. Clausewitz also spoke of the so-called trinity in war of people, army and government, suggesting that Clausewitz’ ideas mainly apply to nation states, a concept that itself is now under attack because of the rise of non-trinitarian wars involving non-state fighters as in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Mali. The question is of course whether these countries were fully developed nation states (well, probably not) in the first place, and whether the nation state as a concept is in decline as suggested by current theorists such as Van Creveld. Clausewitz also used a second trinity – passion, chance, and reason – for his analysis…
View original post 1,266 more words
Helene Finidori – survey: Mapping the Landscape of Patterns Across Domains
23 February at 18:26
Patterns can be found in many domains of research and praxis: design, systems and complexity science, cognitive psychology and neuroscience, linguistics, architecture, computer science, information technology, artificial intelligence, engineering, environmental sciences, biology, education, mathematics and many more…
Researchers and practitioners in these domains have different understandings and approaches to patterns. Yet, could some coherence be found across domains?
I have just finalized a survey with the research group Systems Science and Pattern Literacy at the Bertalanffy Center for the Study of Systems Science.
Patterns it seems to me are not very central and acknowledged in systems science / systems thinking, or are they?
We will welcome the insights of this community on your understanding of patterns and their role in your activity.
Here’s the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/MappingPatternsLandscape
Thanks 🙂
Mapping the Landscape of Patterns Across Domains Survey
4E Cognition Group | Embodied, Embedded, Extended, Enactive
Research group website.
We are an interdisciplinary group of researchers united by a shared interest in recent approaches to cognitive science, often known as “4E cognition” to refer to their emphasis on embodied, embedded, extended, and enactive cognition.
Our research group is officially hosted by the Research Institute for Applied Mathematics and Systems (IIMAS) in the main campus of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) in the southern parts of Mexico City.
We also have ties with the Centre for Complexity Sciences (C3), also at UNAM.
COORDINATOR
Tom Froese – http://froese.wordpress.com/
UPCOMING EVENTS
Enactivism
March 15, 2018 – March 17, 2018, Memphis
http://www.ummoss.org/enactivism18.html
4EC & Mental Disorder
April 5, 2018 – April 6, 2018, Exeter
https://www.joelkrueger.com/4e-conference
Reconceiving Cog.
June 27, 2018 – June 29 Antwerp, Belgium
ALIFE 2018
July 23, 2018 – July 27, 2018, Tokyo, Japan
Movement: Brain, Body, Cognition
July 27, 2018 – July 29, 2018, Harvard Medical School
https://movementis.com
Explaining the origins of the genetic code without vertical descent
Fascinating stuff!
The State of Cybernetics. The digitalisation of cities, bodies and communities – Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research – University of Amsterdam
Conference
What do cities, robots, corporations, political organizations, human bodies, and ecosystems have in common? For the scientists involved in the development of cybernetics from the 1940s to the 1960s, this was all but an awkward question.
In their intellectual and hands-on experimentations, cyberneticians called forth a world in which machines, bodies and nature are entangled as complex and dynamic systems. They theorized that information would and should flow ever more effortlessly within and between these systems.
The purpose of the seminar is to revisit the legacy of cybernetics to shed light on contemporary digital politics. Many of the fundamental questions asked by cyberneticians regain salience today. What remains of liberal individualism when the boundaries between humans, machines and nature are blurred? What are the systemic properties and operating routines of democracy in a world in which machines and humans are increasingly entangled?
Programme
Scholars from fields as diverse as Philosophy, Anthropology, and Artificial Intelligence will give presentations. The speakers include Simon Marvin, Noortje Marres, Andrew Pickering, Willem Schinkel and Tsjalling Swierstra.
Registration
There is limited seating. Are you interested in taking part? Please inquire with Anne Hovingh: anne.hovingh@student.uva.nl. After you register you will receive a more detailed program with abstracts, locations and times.
Public event
The seminar will be concluded by a public event ,The Politics of a Cybernetic World, on Friday March 23 at 4PM at Crea with lectures by Luc Steels and Katherine Hayles, a theatrical performance prepared by Ricarda Franzen and concluding reflections by Andrew Pickering.
Funded by
The event is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) as part of the research project Safeguarding long-term equal stakeholdership in the Smart City & the Center for Urban Studies of the University of Amsterdam as part of a collaboration with the Sheffield Urban Automation Institute.
The event itself:
http://aissr.uva.nl/content/events/events/2018/03/the-politics-of-a-cybernetic-world.html
23 Mar 2018
The Politics of a Cybernetic World
A creative and engaging event exploring the politics of cybernetics with professor Katherine Hayles, professor Luc Steels, professor Andrew Pickering, and dramaturg Ricarda Franzen
What forms of political subjectivity and social organization emerge when people and things are increasingly connected through digital infrastructures? What can robots teach us about inequality or democracy?
During this event, speakers and performers revisit the legacy of cybernetics to shed light on contemporary digital politics.
This is the concluding event of the two-day seminar The State of Cybernetics. The digitalization of cities, bodies and communities.
Funded
This even is funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) as part of the research project Safeguarding long-term equal stakeholdership in the Smart City and the Center for Urban Studies of the University of Amsterdam as part of a collaboration with the Sheffield Urban Automation Institute
The programme
- Theatrical performance directed by Ricarda Franzen
- Lectures by Katherine Hayles and Luc Steels
- Discussions with speakers, audience and Andrew Pickering
Venue
CREA ‘Muziekzaal’, Nieuwe Achtergracht 170, Amsterdam
Registration
Attendance is free of charge but seats are limited, so please register with Anne Hovingh: anne.hovingh@student.uva.nl
The speakers
Katherine Hayles is Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Program in Literature at Duke University, and Distinguished Professor Emerita at the University of California, Los Angeles. She teaches and writes on the relations of literature, science and technology in the 20th and 21st centuries. Amongst her distinguished works are How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis; How We Became Posthuman: Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature and Informatics, and Writing Machines.
Luc Steels is professor of computer science at the University of Brussels (VUB), co-founder and chairman (from 1990 until 1995) of the VUB Computer Science Department (Faculty of Sciences) and founder and first-director of the Sony Computer Science Laboratory in Paris. His main research field is Artificial Intelligence covering a wide range of intelligent abilities, including vision, robotic behavior, conceptual representations and language.
Andrew Pickering is an emeritus professor at the University of Exeter. He is internationally known as a leader in the field of science and technology studies. He is the author of Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics, The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and Science and Kybernetik und Neue Ontologien. In his book The Cybernetic Brain: Sketches of Another Future, he analyses cybernetics as a distinctive form of life spanning brain science, psychiatry, robotics, the theory of complex systems, management, politics, the arts, education, spirituality and the 1960s counterculture, and argues that cybernetics offers a promising alternative to currently hegemonic cultural formations.
Ricarda Franzen works as a dramaturg, sound artist and researcher at the University of Amsterdam. Coinciding with her interests in art practice, she is interested in aspects of sound in relation to its environment but also as being used in theatre and radio dramas. For the Rotterdam-based laboratory for Unstable Media she co-produced a performance based on the ideas of Buckminster Fuller and Marshall McLuhan. For the theatrical performance she developed for ‘the State of cybernetics,’ she similarly draws inspiration from a group of historical cutting-edge thinkers and tinkerers.
The organizers
Justus Uitermark is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Amsterdam. He is affiliated with the Center for Urban Studies and the Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research. Uitermark’s research uses relational theorizing and network analysis to examine self-organization, political conflict, and the social organization of the city. With colleagues at the University of Amsterdam, he is currently researching the online/offline interface, utilizing data sourced from Twitter and Instagram to analyze subcultures and social movements. Recent publications include “Longing for Wikitopia. The study and politics of self-organization” (in Urban Studies) and Cities and Social Movements (co-authored with Walter J. Nicholls, Wiley).
Dorien Zandbergen is an anthropologist of digital culture and politics, currently working as a postdoc researcher at the Sociology Department of the University of Amsterdam. Her current work critically explores the politics of urban digitization. In the documentary In search of the Smart Citizen, which she co-produced with Sara Blom (Creative Commons 2015), she interrogates the vision of the “smart city.” She founded Stichting Gr1p to support artistic and literary interventions that help make complex technological themes, visible, debatable and tangible for a broad audience. Her recent academic publications include “From data fetishism to quantifying selves” (with Tamar Sharon, New Media & Society, 2016) and “We Are Sensemakers.” The (Anti-)politics of Smart City Co-creation” (Public Culture, 2017).
System viability of organizations and the aetiology of organizational crisis : A Quantitative Assessment of Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model
I think this is really a big deal – as Patrick Hoverstadt says:
“Michael Pfiffner did a study across 137 organisations and found a -0.78 correlation between organisations ‘conforming’ to VSM as a normative model and organisational crisis – in other words the more VSMy the organisation, the less likely to end up in crisis and the less VSMy the more likely to end up in crisis with a predictability of almost 80% accuracy. I think that is significantly better than anything else I’ve seen as a general predictive model.”
System viability of organizations and the aetiology of organizational crisis : A Quantitative Assessment of Stafford Beer’s Viable System Model
(2017) Utrecht University Repository
(Dissertation)
Supervisor(s): Schruijer, Sandra; Boselie, Paul
Abstract
Subject of this dissertation is the aetiology of crisis processes which place organizations under existential threats and which often cause organizational demise and bankruptcy. To date, research on organizational crises (OC) has not succeeded in identifying the generic grounds for these detrimental processes in organizations. A minimal consensus can be … read more
Download/Full Text
Author keywords: System Viability, Organizational Crisis, Management Cybernetics, Early Recognition, Prevention, VSM
Publisher: Utrecht University
Embracing Complexity: towards fairness, sustainability and happiness – Jean Boulton
Embracing Complexity: towards fairness, sustainability and happiness
Complexity suggests a different approach to engaging with the world – a middle ground between control and laissez-faire.
We’ve chosen the wrong science to understand the social world.
On the one hand, there is an increasing focus for public sector organizations on defining detailed rules, standardizing methods, evidencing and measuring outcomes. The intention is to make the hospital or school work as an efficient, optimized, well-oiled machine. The belief is that if we tell people exactly what to do and check they do it exactly, then standards and efficiency will improve.
On the other hand, when it comes to commerce and the private sector, there is almost the opposite – increasing deregulation and laissez-faire driven by a strong belief in the invisible hand of the market and in the power of competition to lead to optimal outcomes. The economic world is still largely modelled as if it worked predictably and controllably, moving inexorably towards equilibrium.
What is remarkable is that these beliefs seem to harden and become ever-more entrenched despite the repeating crises facing our economies, ecologies, and societies. They persist in spite of the stark and often completely unexpected social eruptions and political crises that dominate the news. They persist even in the light of increasing evidence that policies are failing. For example, the UK – despite continuing focus on ‘machine thinking’ (defining detailed teaching methods and lesson plans, detailed measuring of performance of schools, teachers and pupils) – is near the bottom of 24 countries in relation to literacy and numeracy. And, despite neo-liberal free market policies and the promise of ‘trickle down’, inequality continues to rise; the UK is 28th out of 34 OECD countries in relation to income inequality and bottom of 37 countries in relation to difference in healthy eating between rich and poor children. If ever there was a need for fresh thinking, we are seeing it now. Yet most of the solutions that are attempted consist in propping up the status quo, doing more of the same, rather than thinking afresh and questioning underlying assumptions.
continues in headline link
Dave Snowden at TedX: A succinct overview of his groundbreaking work – from Sonja Blignaut’s blog
Dave Snowden at TedX: A succinct overview of his groundbreaking work
I first met Dave in 2002 when we were both employed by IBM. I remember experiencing an immediate resonance with his work, especially the inherent integrity of honoring context and not mindlessly applying best-practice recipes as the big consultancies tend to do.
It is now 16 years later, and it has been a privilege to be part of his journey, and to see the thinking and methods become more and more coherent over time. This talk is an excellent resource for anyone who wants an introduction to the thinking, or who wants to introduce others to it.
In less than 18 minutes, Dave manages to introduce complex systems theory; tell the children’s party story (3 mins 30 secs) and introduce a new theory of change based on the power of micro-narrative and vector measures enabled by Sensemaker (7 mins).
Watch it … It’s 18 minutes well spent.
Some stand-out nuggets:
On our over-focus on order and measurement (40 secs)
Order is hugely valuable to human beings, on a negative side a fear of chaos has been used to impose order unnecessarily and destroy creativity and freedom.
Over the last 40 or 50 years we’ve taken an engineering focus on society and an engineering metaphor. We’ve actually compounded order with excessive outcome based measurement. If you actually look at the history of last 40 or 50 years, everything has to have a target; everything has to have a defined outcome and it has to be a number. Whether it’s KPI’s, number of published papers or whatever else. The reality is all of the scientific evidence says that when human beings are pursuing explicit targets it destroys intrinsic motivation, there is no evidence to contradict that.
Where do we most need intrinsic motivation? In health and education. And where do we impose the worst targets? In health and education so we need to start thinking differently about this and move away from a primitive dichotomy.
On managing Complex Adaptive Systems (2 mins):
Complex adaptive system: it’s a system defined not by its structure by it by its connectivity. In a complex system everything is connected with everything else but many of the connections cannot be known. …
… Understanding how we manage them is critical and it’s not about control it’s about understanding the connections and changes in the linkages.
3 mins 30 secs: Children’s Party Story
6 mins 30 secs:
… what we manage is the emergence of beneficial coherence within attractors within boundaries and we manage the only three things that you can manage in a complex adaptive system: the boundary conditions; the probes and the amplification strategy.
Management and governance is much simpler when you understand the nature of the system and you stop trying to treat an ecosystem as if it was an engineering problem when it’s an ecological problem.
On micro-narrative and a new theory of change (7 mins 10 secs)
We need to understand what’s going on, and you can only understand a complex system by understanding the small particular parts of day-to-day interaction. For humans those are the anecdotal data of the school gate, the street stories, the beer after work; not the grand narratives of workshops but the day-to-day anecdotes of people’s existence.
And we need to understand them through the voice of the people who tell them not through an AI machine interpreting the text or an expert making them fit their cultural expectations.
The people’s own voice has to be subject to their own interpretation.
And then we need to allow those in power at any level of society to have direct access to the raw stories of the people they govern, without multiple levels of interpretation which allow them to hide from reality behind the guise of policy reports.
On change (nudging towards adjacent possibles) (15 min 40 sec)
… they can all nudge their systems in a direction appropriate to their context rather being subject to the tyranny of the average approach: the global campaign.
We need to start doing small things in the present rather than promising massive things in the future because that just leads to perpetual disappointment.
We are Dave’s exclusive South Africa partners, so if you want to explore how to implement these ideas in your own context, please contact us to find out more.
Conference on Complex Systems 23-28 September 2018, Thessaloniki, Greece
CCS2018 is the flagship conference on Complex Systems promoted by the CSS. It brings under one umbrella a wide variety of leading researchers, practitioners and stakeholders with a direct interest in Complex Systems, from Physics to Computer Science, Biology, Social Sciences, Economics, and Technological and Communication Networks, among others.
We are looking forward to seeing the best of your new insights in Complex Systems at the Conference on Complex Systems 2018, in Thessaloniki, Greece, to be held from 23 to 28 September 2018.
Topics covered by the Conference include, but are not limited to:
Main Tracks
1. Foundations of Complex Systems (complex networks, self-organization, nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, mathematical modeling and simulation)
2. Information and Communication Technologies (Internet, WWW, search, semantic web, Blockchain, Bitcoins)
3. Cognition and Linguistics (evolution of language, social consensus, artificial intelligence, cognitive processes)
4. Economics and Finance (social networks, game theory, stock market and crises)
5. Infrastructure, Planning and Environment (critical infrastructures, urban planning, mobility, transport and energy, Smart Cities)
6. Biological and (Bio)Medical Complexity (biological networks, systems biology, evolution, natural science, medicine and physiology)
7. Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) (global environmental change, green growth, sustainability and resilience)
8. Complexity in Physics and Chemistry
9. Other applications of Complex Systems
We invite you to submit a one-page abstract until the 30th of April 2018, via our EasyChair submission link: EasyChair
Abstract Submission Guidelines
Easychair will be used for all procedures
- Log in to easychair.org using an existing account.
- If you do not have an account, you can easily sign up.
- Click on the submission link (see below).
- Log in to the conference as an author, and proceed with uploading your paper at the top left corner by clicking “New Submission”
- Follow the instructions easy chair provides you and fill in all the necessary details.
- Submit.
Submission link: https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=ccs20180
We accept contributed talks (regular and lightning talks) and posters. Please indicate your preference for one of the following categories to present your research:
- Regular talk
- Poster submission
- Lightning talk
Oral Presentations
The allocated time for each oral presentations is 15 minutes, which total time for presentation +questions (12 min + 3 min). There is a tight schedule and it is important that each presenter stay within this time limit. Presenters will have access to a laptop with LCD projector and a laser pointer. Please, bring your presentation to the meeting on a USB flash drive to load on the in-room laptops. You should load your presentation on one of the conference laptops before the first session, during the coffee breaks, or during lunch preceding your presentation. A support staff member will be in each room to assist with the loading.
Poster Presentations
For each poster, display boards will be allocated. The poster area will open 30 minutes before each poster sessions begins each day. It is advisable to hang the posters sometime before 9:00 a.m. the day of the respective session. Posters will need to be taken down by the end of the day of each session. Presenters will be required to be next to their posters during specific time slots. Poster dimensions: 90 x 120 cm.
Lightning (Ignite) presentations
A few oral talks will be presented in the “ignite” mode. Such talks should present a single, new, key idea of the problem at hand, rather than give complete and detailed results of a research project. Thus, the allocated time will be 3 minutes. No questions/answers will be allowed. Each ignite talk should have no more than 3 slides. All presentations should be loaded to the room laptop before the beginning of the session. Please see the support staff member of the room to assist you with the loading.
Important dates:
Deadline for abstract submission: 30 Apr 2018
Notification to authors: 1 June 2018.
Dates of the Conference: 23-28 September 2018.
Dates of satellite meetings: 26-27 September 2018.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us: ccs2018@auth.gr
Complexity and Philosophy
Complexity and Philosophy
(Submitted on 19 Apr 2006)
The science of complexity is based on a new way of thinking that stands in sharp contrast to the philosophy underlying Newtonian science, which is based on reductionism, determinism, and objective knowledge. This paper reviews the historical development of this new world view, focusing on its philosophical foundations. Determinism was challenged by quantum mechanics and chaos theory. Systems theory replaced reductionism by a scientifically based holism. Cybernetics and postmodern social science showed that knowledge is intrinsically subjective. These developments are being integrated under the header of “complexity science”. Its central paradigm is the multi-agent system. Agents are intrinsically subjective and uncertain about their environment and future, but out of their local interactions, a global organization emerges. Although different philosophers, and in particular the postmodernists, have voiced similar ideas, the paradigm of complexity still needs to be fully assimilated by philosophy. This will throw a new light on old philosophical issues such as relativism, ethics and the role of the subject.
Full pdf available free at headline link.
Contextuality: A Philosophical Paradigm, with Applications to Philosophy of Cognitive Science – Cogprints
Contextuality: A Philosophical Paradigm, with Applications to Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Gershenson, C (2002) Contextuality: A Philosophical Paradigm, with Applications to Philosophy of Cognitive Science.[Departmental Technical Report] (Unpublished)
Full text available as:
![[img]](https://stream.syscoi.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/application_pdf.png?w=776) |
PDF 112Kb |
Abstract
We develop on the idea that everything is related, inside, and therefore determined by a context. This stance, which at first might seem obvious, has several important consequences. This paper first presents ideas on Contextuality, for then applying them to problems in philosophy of cognitive science. Because of space limitations, for the second part we will assume that the reader is familiar with the literature of philosophy of cognitive science, but if this is not the case, it would not be a limitation for understanding the main ideas of this paper. We do not argue that Contextuality is a panaceic answer for explaining everything, but we do argue that everything is inside a context. And because this is always, we sometimes ignore it, but we believe that many problems are dissolved with a contextual approach, noticing things we ignore because of their obviousity. We first give a notion of context. We present the idea that errors are just incongruencies inside a context. We also present previous ideas of absolute being, relative being, and lessincompleteness. We state that all logics, and also truth judgements, are contextdependent, and we develop a “Context-dependant Logic”. We apply ideas of Contextuality to problems in semantics, the problem of “where is the mind”, and the study of consciousness.
Systems Community of Inquiry 
You must be logged in to post a comment.