Glen, I am intentionally trying to avoid the typical negative connotation to "Corruption" as I also avoid the positive connotation placed on "Evolution", others tried that in 1930's.
My use of the word corruption is focused on a complex system and its component machinery being usurped to fulfill a role or function not seen in earlier manifestations. When ever a complex system is transformed I suspect evolution and corruption without prejudice. It is pretty easy to decide if a transformation is corruption since the system being transformed is usually equipped with a rudimentary protection system intended to defeat such subversions. So if the transfiguring agency escaped interdiction that is good enough reason to call it "Corruption" It gets very tricky when we nudge close to symbiosis but usually there is a remnant of corruption detectable but the agents managed a negotiated truce of some kind. THese are so rare they are barely able to be enumerated. A typical test for which is the case is to see what happens when one or the other party is removed. Normally one species performs about the same, the other is not as stable on its own. Tapeworms may produce some vitamins but overall they don't do well on their own but Icelanders rarely notice a difference. >From the perspective of an entomologist, I would call the co-insertion of a virus with a hymenopteran egg into a host as corruption of the host system, to shut down an immune system that would otherwise destroy the parasitic life form. The interdiction system was clearly thwarted as with HIV Aids. This example is complex upon complex. It involved three species. But it is not the only such case described. There was if I recall an example of two ground squirrel species in US held in ecological balance because the weaker species carried an endemic virus ( Colorado Tick Fever Virus, I think) exceptionally deadly to the more aggressive species, that makes it at least a 4 species system. White tailed deer are not native to Western Canada but when given the opportuity to move along man made open fields, it could expand its range, the white tailed deer carried a innocous helminth I think Brain Worm, the worm laid its eggs into the digestive tract and was dispersed upon ground cover. When the eggs were ingested by Moose and Mule deer it destroyed the brains of those species allowing the white tailed deer to drive out competition from superior species, that is at least 5 species if you count man made artifacts. What protected the moose was the dense coniferous Boreal forest, now that is six species, the mule deer retreated into the Arid mountanous western prairie. The lack of moose and mule deer seems to have pushed the Grey wolf back and allowed the coyote to dominate. The white tailed deer really has no effective predator but the automobile, since the long gun regulations took effect and discouraged hunters. Severe winter cold used to control their spread but now the suburban sprawl gave them support from local nature lovers. So now we apparently live with Lyme disease right in our backyards and Chronic Wasting disease is showing up all over North America. The white tailed or Virginia deer is a study in complexity. I honestly have no idea how many species it manages to influence. I suspect it is superior to the common rat In that regard. It just prefers the suburbs to the downtown districts. If you think this cute Bambi is computable, then maybe so is Man. Hey guys get me a beer and I could go on all night about weird interrelated ecological diseases and human history. NetLogo does not appear to have been used for any such typical examples please correct me if I am wrong. It looks to me that a simple complex system of three or four species is a tough slog for the time being. Wish we had some CDC lurkers in the crowd. Dr.Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky Ph.D.(Civil Eng.), M.Sc.(Mech.Eng.), M.Sc.(Biology) 120-1053 Beaverhill Blvd. Winnipeg, Manitoba CANADA R2J 3R2 (204) 2548321 Phone/Fax [email protected] -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of glen e. p. ropella Sent: April 1, 2010 3:44 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] holism vs. reductionism, again Vladimyr Ivan Burachynsky wrote circa 10-03-31 09:04 PM: > The notion is uncomfortable, and perhaps demonstrable with computer > simulations. I have to agree with Victoria (and Eric), here. "Corruption" does not make sense in the context of evolution. The sense of the word is that we have some access to the purpose or intent behind evolution and any wandering off that purpose or intent is "corruption". But that's just not the case. We have no idea (or there does not exist) a telos to evolution. Hence, there can't be any corruption. When a scientist uses a jargonal or deeply domain specific method (or even just reformats a set of buzzwords) to get yet another paper published or secure tenure at a university, they are not corrupt in any sense. And I don't actually tolerate such activity, I laud it as a successful exploit of the system that exists. Now, when I switch hats from constructive to critic, I make my best attempts to critically point out to others how some science seems to have more merit. I try to help filter out the garbage. But even the best minds can be tricked or find themselves baffled (as Bertrand Russell seems to have been by Goedel's proofs). But with my constructive hat(s) on, even the wackos who espouse obviously debunked crazy stuff play a necessary (and welcome) role. Such "corruption" doesn't make me uncomfortable at all because it's all part of the same grand scheme. > As Sarbajit has pointed out, the system has more than a Single Point > of Failure SPOF. And that the identification of SPOF's has inevitably > failed to contend with systemic flaws. In fact focusing on SPOF's > may actually create more in a perverse feed back loop. > > A classic example was the discovery that the only way to keep > Spitfire pilots alive in air battles was to get rid of the armour. It > gave them speed and added enormous fear to the pilot's performances. > Today such a solution seems absolutely politically incorrect. Every > incremental increase of armour had led to more deaths. I think what you're trying to describe is an (at least partially) open system. Granted, to some extent Rosen, Maturana & Varela, Crutchfield, et al are right that a certain extent of closure is required for complexity; but to say a certain extent of closure is required is also to say that a certain extent of openness is required, as well. The trick is which part is closed, which parts are open, is closure dynamic, etc. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://tempusdictum.com -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
