Dear All
I agree with Pedro's perspective, it looks very reasonable from the
standpoint of social sciences.
I would like to put a question to Joe and other colleagues regarding the
constraints of managing social complexity (whatever, objective or
perceived). Humanity has reached a high historical degree of
interconnectance, where we exchange material (products), energy, and
information over a variety of different pathways and across the globe. At
the same time we have been introducing new chemical compounds, new
materials (e.g. nanotechnology) and even new species in the natural and
human environment. This at a pace which is likely to favor unintended
consequences. New institutions (rules, habits, organizations) emerge to
deal with the "complexity" of these overlapping networks of communication
and material exchange. These come at a cost for a society, a cost which is
not only monetary or material but also taxes our ability to deal with the
overwhelming information that is produced in the process. In a way we tend
to produce "complexity" and respond to its challenges by introducing more
"complexity". Joe emphasized in his work the importance of diminishing
returns to complexity in problem solving.
Considering that we necessarily operate under certain genetic constraints,
are there (absolute) upper limits to our ability to manage social complexity?
I guess that there are also cultural constraints involved here, and that
these can be stretched to some limit, but eventually, a threshold is
reached where the culture may not be stretched beyond our biological
underpinnings.
The best
Igor
----- Original Message ----- From: "Pedro Marijuan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 2:04 PM
Subject: [Fis] Re: Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity
Dear Joe and colleagues,
Thanks for the new angle. The problem on how to ascribe complexity looks
quite "complex" in itself... It connects with the aspect of
decomposability in parts / components of entities which surfaced last
month (when arguing on the "human factor"). For obscure reasons, maybe
connected with the philosophical and methodological dominance of
reductionism, we have not assimilated yet that informationally "open
systems" (or entities) cannot be treated in isolation neither of their
boundary conditions, nor of their intrinsic activity. The brain itself is
an excellent case in point. Depending on both external boundaries and
inner propensities it is not complex nor simple: it depends. (Thus I agree
with the comments below). However, it should not be read as an argument in
defense of relativism or radical perspectivism. Rather it means that
informationally open entities cannot be treated cavalierly in the same way
than mechanical, closed entities ... they are structured in a different,
strange way. Perhaps this type of proper, general treatment should be, in
other words, the "info sci. methodology", the so much looked after "sci.
of open systems."
regards,
Pedro
At 22:31 26/01/2007, you wrote:
So the brain is simple for this purpose. Therein lies the broader
question. Is the complexity of the brain relative to the perspective of
the analyst? Or is the complexity of the brain innate? Surely a simple
brain of three parts could not generate social and cultural complexity as
we know them? But to a doctor treating a patient with epilepsy, this is
irrelevant. The brain is simple, and so is the treatment.
Inevitably we are led to more general issues. Is social/cultural
complexity an attribute of a society/culture, or is it an attribute of
the observer's perspective? Is complexity innate or asscribed? Clearly
this question applies to any kind of complex system, not just social or
cultural ones.
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis