Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Stanley N Salthe]

Nikhil --  Leaving aside details of hierarchical structure, I point out,
concerning economics:

It seems that you have in mind a global economic system in your planning.
Is that so? I think that the current global capitalist system would need to
be eschewed.

Then, this also would seem to involve a world government, placing the types
of agriculture in their optimal regions, etc.

Alternative;y, perhaps your system might function on an island like
Australia?

STAN

On Thu, Dec 17, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Nikhil Joshi 
wrote:

> Dear All,
> The research presented here is focused on gleaning insights leading to new
> solutions to the economics vs ecosystem conflict. The roots of many of
> our problems in ecological sustainability lie in the fact that our
> socio-economic systems are largely focused on fulfilling only human needs
> and the needs of human organizations. In doing so, as pointed out by Pedro,
> Bob, Francesco and others in this group our economics largely ignores the
> productive value of our ecosystems and the true costs of our development on
> our life supporting living systems.
>
> I term such a society as a “shallow society”, a society that is focused on
> the development of a single species and largely ignores the value of its
> own life-supporting living systems. With global population predicted to
> grow to 9 billion people, the next level of human development requires a
> transition of human society from being a “shallow society” that is only
> focused on only human needs to what I call a “deep society”. A deep
> society is a society that includes all living systems in its development.
>
> In this view, a deep society is not only focused on needs of human beings
> and their organizations but its development models also include development
> of the entire gamut of life-supporting living systems. Such a society
> grows not by exploiting the resources of a living planet, but also it
> possesses the capability to nurture, grow and actively manage a “living
> planet” (and perhaps seed life on other planets as well). Human
> development in the future will require the creation of new capabilities to
> develop models leading to a deep society. The question then is- can we
> develop systems that will enable a fair-value reciprocity and exchange
> between living ecosystems and economic systems?
>
>
> While, the notion that economics does not adequately value natural
> systems has been highlighted by many researchers in the field of ecological
> economics. Ideas on how natural systems can be understood, valued and
> integrated into economics have remained elusive. A multilevel view (like
> the one presented here) allows one to compare socio-economic
> organizations with natural organizations and could also provide new
> insights into how the dynamics of natural ecosystems could be synergised
> with economic systems.
>
> The model presented in the kick-off session shows two levels of
> energetically and materially coupled exchange networks in ecosystems. At
> the first level of exchange networks geochemical molecules are organized
> into different autotrophic species, and modulated by Mycorrhiza (level 1).
> Different autotrophic species then become food for the different
> heterotrophic species hence giving rise to the next higher level of
> exchange networks in ecosystems, modulated by gut bacterial networks (Level
> 2). The question then is- how does nature organize to build-in synergies
> between these two levels?
>
> At level 1, Mycorrhiza networks are known to modulate growth rates across
> different autotrophic species by providing phosphorous to different
> autotrophic species in quantitative exchange for carbohydrates. Autotrophic
> species (or groups of autotrophic species) that provide more carbohydrate
> hence get more phosphorous. Hence carbohydrates play a role in influencing
> phosphorous allocation across different autotrophic species connected to a
> Mycorrhiza network. At the next higher level in the exchange networks
> between different autotrophic species and different heterotrophic species
> gut bacteria use carbohydrates to modulate growth rates in heterotrophic
> species. Hence carbohydrates seem to play a role both in influencing
> dynamics in exchange networks at level 1, as well as in influencing
> dynamics in exchange networks at level 2.
>
> *Could such an organization where carbohydrates are a common influencing
> factor in exchanges at both levels serve to align both levels towards
> increasing overall carbohydrate production in ecosystems (hence increasing
> the overall primary production in ecosystems) by synergizing dynamics
> across both levels (and two different modulator networks)?*
>
> *Could this two-level role of carbohydrates provide new insights on
> aligning the third level of exchange networks (and our financial investment
> networks) with underling ecosystem exchange networks at level 1 and 2? *
> At this stage, these and other ideas 

[Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Nikhil Joshi]

Dear All, 
The research presented here is focused on gleaning insights leading to new 
solutions to the economics vs ecosystem conflict. The roots of many of our 
problems in ecological sustainability lie in the fact that our socio-economic 
systems are largely focused on fulfilling only human needs and the needs of 
human organizations. In doing so, as pointed out by Pedro, Bob, Francesco and 
others in this group our economics largely ignores the productive value of our 
ecosystems and the true costs of our development on our life supporting living 
systems.  

I term such a society as a “shallow society”, a society that is focused on the 
development of a single species and largely ignores the value of its own 
life-supporting living systems. With global population predicted to grow to 9 
billion people, the next level of human development requires a transition of 
human society from being a “shallow society” that is only focused on only human 
needs to what I call a “deep society”. A deep society is a society that 
includes all living systems in its development. 

In this view, a deep society is not only focused on needs of human beings and 
their organizations but its development models also include development of the 
entire gamut of life-supporting living systems. Such a society grows not by 
exploiting the resources of a living planet, but also it possesses the 
capability to nurture, grow and actively manage a “living planet” (and perhaps 
seed life on other planets as well). Human development in the future will 
require the creation of new capabilities to develop models leading to a deep 
society. The question then is- can we develop systems that will enable a 
fair-value reciprocity and exchange between living ecosystems and economic 
systems?


While, the notion that economics does not adequately value natural systems has 
been highlighted by many researchers in the field of ecological economics. 
Ideas on how natural systems can be understood, valued and integrated into 
economics have remained elusive. A multilevel view (like the one presented 
here) allows one to compare socio-economic organizations with natural 
organizations and could also provide new insights into how the dynamics of 
natural ecosystems could be synergised with economic systems. 

The model presented in the kick-off session shows two levels of energetically 
and materially coupled exchange networks in ecosystems. At the first level of 
exchange networks geochemical molecules are organized into different 
autotrophic species, and modulated by Mycorrhiza (level 1). Different 
autotrophic species then become food for the different heterotrophic species 
hence giving rise to the next higher level of exchange networks in ecosystems, 
modulated by gut bacterial networks (Level 2). The question then is- how does 
nature organize to build-in synergies between these two levels?


At level 1, Mycorrhiza networks are known to modulate growth rates across 
different autotrophic species by providing phosphorous to different autotrophic 
species in quantitative exchange for carbohydrates. Autotrophic species (or 
groups of autotrophic species) that provide more carbohydrate hence get more 
phosphorous. Hence carbohydrates play a role in influencing phosphorous 
allocation across different autotrophic species connected to a Mycorrhiza 
network. At the next higher level in the exchange networks between different 
autotrophic species and different heterotrophic species gut bacteria use 
carbohydrates to modulate growth rates in heterotrophic species. Hence 
carbohydrates seem to play a role both in influencing dynamics in exchange 
networks at level 1, as well as in influencing dynamics in exchange networks at 
level 2.


Could such an organization where carbohydrates are a common influencing factor 
in exchanges at both levels serve to align both levels towards increasing 
overall carbohydrate production in ecosystems (hence increasing the overall 
primary production in ecosystems) by synergizing dynamics across both levels 
(and two different modulator networks)? 

Could this two-level role of carbohydrates provide new insights on aligning the 
third level of exchange networks (and our financial investment networks) with 
underling ecosystem exchange networks at level 1 and 2? 

At this stage, these and other ideas presented here require much further 
assessment and development. Nevertheless, at this early stage of development 
they seem to provide a different vantage to view multilevel living systems. Can 
multilevel research help in uncovering new ideas and insights to understand 
multilevel systems, and align economics and ecosystems?

Your views, comments and feedback are much appreciated. 

Thanking you,

Warm regards, 

Nikhil Joshi___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[John Collier]

Interesting post, Nikhil. One of my PhD students is doing his thesis on 
egalitarian (living system) centred morality. He is not aiming to draw moral 
conclusions, but to lay out a coherent position based in complexity theory, 
especially in the work of Paul Cilliers (who he studied with for his MA) and 
myself.

Extension to include the values of all living systems within economics is a 
natural extension of my student’s work, though he has enough on his plate right 
now.

John Collier
Professor Emeritus, UKZN
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Nikhil Joshi
Sent: Thursday, 17 December 2015 10:53
To: FIS Group
Cc: Nikhil Joshi
Subject: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep 
Society Build-A-Thon - 1

Dear All,
The research presented here is focused on gleaning insights leading to new 
solutions to the economics vs ecosystem conflict. The roots of many of our 
problems in ecological sustainability lie in the fact that our socio-economic 
systems are largely focused on fulfilling only human needs and the needs of 
human organizations. In doing so, as pointed out by Pedro, Bob, Francesco and 
others in this group our economics largely ignores the productive value of our 
ecosystems and the true costs of our development on our life supporting living 
systems.


I term such a society as a “shallow society”, a society that is focused on the 
development of a single species and largely ignores the value of its own 
life-supporting living systems. With global population predicted to grow to 9 
billion people, the next level of human development requires a transition of 
human society from being a “shallow society” that is only focused on only human 
needs to what I call a “deep society”. A deep society is a society that 
includes all living systems in its development.


In this view, a deep society is not only focused on needs of human beings and 
their organizations but its development models also include development of the 
entire gamut of life-supporting living systems. Such a society grows not by 
exploiting the resources of a living planet, but also it possesses the 
capability to nurture, grow and actively manage a “living planet” (and perhaps 
seed life on other planets as well). Human development in the future will 
require the creation of new capabilities to develop models leading to a deep 
society. The question then is- can we develop systems that will enable a 
fair-value reciprocity and exchange between living ecosystems and economic 
systems?

While, the notion that economics does not adequately value natural systems has 
been highlighted by many researchers in the field of ecological economics. 
Ideas on how natural systems can be understood, valued and integrated into 
economics have remained elusive. A multilevel view (like the one presented 
here) allows one to compare socio-economic organizations with natural 
organizations and could also provide new insights into how the dynamics of 
natural ecosystems could be synergised with economic systems.
The model presented in the kick-off session shows two levels of energetically 
and materially coupled exchange networks in ecosystems. At the first level of 
exchange networks geochemical molecules are organized into different 
autotrophic species, and modulated by Mycorrhiza (level 1). Different 
autotrophic species then become food for the different heterotrophic species 
hence giving rise to the next higher level of exchange networks in ecosystems, 
modulated by gut bacterial networks (Level 2). The question then is- how does 
nature organize to build-in synergies between these two levels?
At level 1, Mycorrhiza networks are known to modulate growth rates across 
different autotrophic species by providing phosphorous to different autotrophic 
species in quantitative exchange for carbohydrates. Autotrophic species (or 
groups of autotrophic species) that provide more carbohydrate hence get more 
phosphorous. Hence carbohydrates play a role in influencing phosphorous 
allocation across different autotrophic species connected to a Mycorrhiza 
network. At the next higher level in the exchange networks between different 
autotrophic species and different heterotrophic species gut bacteria use 
carbohydrates to modulate growth rates in heterotrophic species. Hence 
carbohydrates seem to play a role both in influencing dynamics in exchange 
networks at level 1, as well as in influencing dynamics in exchange networks at 
level 2.
Could such an organization where carbohydrates are a common influencing factor 
in exchanges at both levels serve to align both levels towards increasing 
overall carbohydrate production in ecosystems (hence increasing the overall 
primary production in ecosystems) by synergizing dynamics across both levels 
(and two different modulator networks)?
Could this two-level role of carbohydrates provide new insights on aligning the 
third level of exchange

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Stanley N Salthe]

Loet -- A metabiolgy does not imply that there would not be
more-than-biological properties and processes going on.  We would not
bother to identify a higher level unless it had some of its own emergent
properties.

STAN

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Loet Leydesdorff <l...@leydesdorff.net>
wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> I don’t consider it as fruitful to recycle the argument that society were
> to be modeled as a meta-biology. The biological explanation can perhaps
> explain behavior of individuals and institutions; but social coordination
> more generally involves also the dynamics of expectations. These are much
> more abstract although conditioned by the historical layer. For example,
> one cannot expect to explain the *trias politica* or the rule of law
> biologically. These cultural constructs regulate our behavior from above,
> whereas the biological supports existence and living from below. The
> historical follows the axis of time, whereas the codification (albeit
> historical in the instantiations) also restructures and potentially
> intervenes and reorganizes social relations from the perspective of
> hindsight.
>
>
>
> In analogy to codifications such as the juridical ones, scientific
> knowledge provides the code for technological intervention. This type of
> knowledge is human-specific; perhaps, we are also able to build machines
> that mimick it. This technological evolution is going on for centuries. If
> I look up from my screen, I look into the gardens which have a typical
> Dutch polder vegetation. The polder was made in the 17th century and
> replaced the natural ecology of marsh land and lakes. The order of the
> explanation was thus inverted: the constructed structures (instead of the
> constructing agencies) increasingly carry the system. The constructs don’t
> have to be material; see my example of the rule of law. It is not a
> religion, but a dynamics of expectations. Replacing it with a biology
> misses the point.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Loet
>
>
> --
>
> Loet Leydesdorff
>
> Professor, University of Amsterdam
> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>
> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
> Honorary Professor, SPRU, <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/>University of
> Sussex;
>
> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ. <http://www.zju.edu.cn/english/>,
> Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
> <http://www.istic.ac.cn/Eng/brief_en.html>Beijing;
>
> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck <http://www.bbk.ac.uk/>, University of
> London;
>
> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en
>
>
>
> *From:* Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] *On Behalf Of *Nikhil
> Joshi
> *Sent:* Friday, December 11, 2015 9:47 AM
> *To:* FIS Group
> *Cc:* Nikhil Joshi
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The
> Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
>
>
>
> Dear Guy and FIS colleagues,
>
> Thank you for your comments and the copy of your article. Your views on
> the roots of biological systems and their evolution in dissipate systems
> are very interesting. Your paper reminds me of a paper by Virgo and Froese
> on how simple dissipative structures can demonstrate many of the
> characteristics associated with living systems, and the work of Jeremy
> England at MIT.
>
>
>
> Given your research focus and expertise in looking at living systems as
> dissipative systems, I would appreciate your views and assistance in
> understanding the energetics involved in the common multilevel
> organisational pattern (CMOP) (presented in the paper II of the kick-off
> mail).
>
>
>
> At first glance, it appears that different levels in self-organization in
> living systems  a core dynamic in living systems is comprised of a cycle
> between a class of more-stable species (coupled-composite species) and a
> class of less-stable species (decoupled-composite species), see paper II in
> the kick-off mail.
>
> hence:
>
> Level 1: Molecular self-organization, involves a cycle between oxidised
> molecules (more stable) and reduced molecules (less stable) in molecular
> self-organization in  photosynthesis and cellular metabolism [Morowitz and
> smith].
>
>
>
> Level 2: Cellular self-orgnaization, involves a cycle between autotrophic
> species (more stable) and heterotrophic species (less stable) in ecosystems
> [Stability of species types as defined by- Yodzis and Innes Yodzis, P.;
> Innes, S. Body Size and Consumer-Resource Dynamics. *Am. Nat.* 1992, *139*,
> 1151].
>
>
>
> Level 3: Social self-self-organization, involves a cycle between
> kinship-based social groups (more stable) an

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Robert E. Ulanowicz]

Dear Nikhil,

As regards ecosystems, some 20% or so of bound energy is retained via
cycling, but the primary function of cycling as conservator is with
limiting elements. Often 70+% of necessary elements are retained via
cycling within the system. This becomes very evident when one regards
coral reefs, where nutrients within the reef are far richer than in the
desert ocean that surrounds them.

The best,
Bob

> At level 1 (molecular self-organiztion)- solar energy is stored in the
> high-energy reduced molecules. Do you see a possibility that living
> systems could store energy in cycles involving less stable species at the
> two other levels (level 2, and 3) as well? (When I speak of stored energy,
> I am referring to stored-energy as introduced by Mclare, and discussed by
> Ulanowicz and Ho [Sustainable Systems as Organisms?, BioSystems 82 (2005)
> 39–51].


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Nikhil Joshi]

Dear Guy and FIS colleagues,
Thank you for your comments and the copy of your article. Your views on the 
roots of biological systems and their evolution in dissipate systems are very 
interesting. Your paper reminds me of a paper by Virgo and Froese on how simple 
dissipative structures can demonstrate many of the characteristics associated 
with living systems, and the work of Jeremy England at MIT.

Given your research focus and expertise in looking at living systems as 
dissipative systems, I would appreciate your views and assistance in 
understanding the energetics involved in the common multilevel organisational 
pattern (CMOP) (presented in the paper II of the kick-off mail).

At first glance, it appears that different levels in self-organization in 
living systems  a core dynamic in living systems is comprised of a cycle 
between a class of more-stable species (coupled-composite species) and a class 
of less-stable species (decoupled-composite species), see paper II in the 
kick-off mail.
hence:
Level 1: Molecular self-organization, involves a cycle between oxidised 
molecules (more stable) and reduced molecules (less stable) in molecular 
self-organization in  photosynthesis and cellular metabolism [Morowitz and 
smith]. 

Level 2: Cellular self-orgnaization, involves a cycle between autotrophic 
species (more stable) and heterotrophic species (less stable) in ecosystems 
[Stability of species types as defined by- Yodzis and Innes Yodzis, P.; Innes, 
S. Body Size and Consumer-Resource Dynamics. Am. Nat. 1992, 139, 1151].

Level 3: Social self-self-organization, involves a cycle between kinship-based 
social groups (more stable) and non-kinship-based social groups (less stable) 
[Stability of species types as suggested in Paper II, based on an extension of 
work of Robin Dunbar and others]. 

At level 1 (molecular self-organiztion)- solar energy is stored in the  
high-energy reduced molecules. Do you see a possibility that living systems 
could store energy in cycles involving less stable species at the two other 
levels (level 2, and 3) as well? (When I speak of stored energy, I am referring 
to stored-energy as introduced by Mclare, and discussed by Ulanowicz and Ho 
[Sustainable Systems as Organisms?, BioSystems 82 (2005) 39–51]. 

These are early thoughts and your views are much appreciated. 
Many Thanks,
Warm regards,

Nikhil Joshi




> On 01-Dec-2015, at 10:27 pm, Guy A Hoelzer  > wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I have been following this thread with interest as much as time permits.  I 
> think multilevel approaches to understanding information flow is an important 
> one.  I also think the structure of natural systems exhibits both 
> hierarchical and heterarchical features.  The hierarchies we formally 
> recognize can be extremely useful, but they are rarely exclusive of 
> alternatives.  Here is a link to a paper Mark Tessera and I published a 
> couple of years ago arguing for one particular hierarchy of multilevel 
> emergence in physical systems connecting lower level physical systems to 
> biological systems:
> 
> Tessara, M., and G. A. Hoelzer.  2013.  On the thermodynamics of multilevel 
> evolution.  Biosystems 113:  140–143.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Guy
> 
> Guy Hoelzer, Associate Professor
> Department of Biology
> University of Nevada Reno
> 
> Phone:  775-784-4860
> Fax:  775-784-1302
> hoel...@unr.edu 

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Nikhil Joshi]

nguage like forms [Honkela 
et al (2006 and 2008), see Joshi (2015) paper II for a reference]. They have 
used a framework of “unsupervised learning” from machine learning to study the 
emergence of conceptual knowledge and language like forms in interacting 
autonomous agents. In machine learning terms unsupervised learning is learning 
that does not involve a environmental feedback [Litman (1996), see Joshi (2015) 
paper II for a reference]. Such learning is hence based on exchanges between 
interacting agents themselves. It is known to produce abstract knowledge that 
can be represented in the form of self-organizing maps [Honkela et al (2006 and 
2008), see Joshi (2015) paper II for reference]. 

An interesting question is that if the two frameworks: 

(1) Evolution of sociality in kinship based social groups [Logan] and 
unsupervised learning in autonomous interacting agents [Honkela and others] 
both give rise to conceptual knowledge and the emergence of language like 
forms. Could there be equivalence between these two frameworks? In other words, 
can the learning in the course of evolution of sociality in kinship based 
social groups as described by Logan and others be represented as unsupervised 
learning in a machine-learning framework of Honkela and others? 

Another more speculative idea- kinship based social groups have been shown to 
belong to a larger class of coupled-composite systems, a class that also 
includes multicellular autotrophic species, and reduced molecules in the 
metabolic core in living cells [see Joshi (2015) paper II ). 

 (2) Is this above process that begins with the emergence of sociality 
(coupled-composite systems) and evolves to the emergence of conceptual 
knowledge and language (i.e.- alphabetic catalysts), and finally to the 
emergence of non-kinship based social groups (decoupled-composite systems) also 
applicable at other levels in self-organization?  

Hence, could the evolution of cellular sociality [ref- Witzany’s work on RNA 
sociality in living cells] in evolution of early multicellular autotrophic 
species have given rise to “conceptual knowledge” at a cellular level, leading 
to the emergence of the next higher-level alphabetic catalysts- the DNA? could 
the emergence of DNA have facilitated the emergence of exchange networks 
between autotrophic and heterotrophic species (decoupled-composite systems)? 


I admit that these are very early thoughts and are highly speculative, but 
nonetheless could provide new avenues to pursue in developing a multilevel view 
of living systems by integrating different research streams.  I humbly put 
forth these ideas for comments, and reflections from the FIS group. Your views 
and references to other work, will help assess these ideas and are greatly 
appreciated. 

Warm regards, 

Nikhil Joshi



> On 01-Dec-2015, at 8:10 pm, Xueshan Yan <y...@pku.edu.cn> wrote:
> 
> Dear Joshi,
>  
> No matter what topic/title you used, no matter what goal you want to reach, 
> your post has raised a very important theory which can decide the future of 
> information science: Three Level Theory: Molecular (level1), Cellular 
> (level2), Social (level3). (Please excuse my minor modification).
>  
> The FIS colleagues can easily recollect the theory of Cell, Brain, Firm which 
> was advocated by Pedro about 10 years ago, but I think this hierarchy is 
> could be much better spent taking some positive action.
>  
> Social (level3): It can indicate the all human/social information studies.
> Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological information 
> studies.
> Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical information 
> studies.
> XXX (level0): Particlate/physical information studies??
>  
> As we know, due to the Technological Information Science (It includes 
> computer science and telecommunications) is not self-organizational, or 
> antipoetic, so we generally don't consider it as a real information science.
>  
> With my best regards!
>  
> Xueshan
> Peking University
>  
> From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On 
> Behalf Of Nikhil Joshi
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:35 PM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es
> Cc: Nikhil Joshi
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, 
> Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
> 
> Dear Joseph and Stan,
>  
> Both of you mention about earlier work on isomorphisms, and you also mention 
> hetero-organization. If it is not inconvenient, may I request more 
> information on this? You also mention that the use of self-organisation could 
> be a distracting, could you recommend an alternate formulation?
>  
> At this time, I must clarify that I am not suggesting a hierarchical 
> relationship between the three levels. I am referring to h

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Nikhil Joshi]

Dear Joseph and Stan,
Both of you mention about earlier work on isomorphisms, and you also mention
hetero-organization. If it is not inconvenient, may I request more information
on this? You also mention that the use of self-organisation could be a
distracting, could you recommend an alternate formulation?
 
At this time, I must clarify that I am not suggesting a hierarchical
relationship between the three levels. I am referring to hierarchical
organisation within the species at each level - molecules (level1), cellular
species (level2) and social groups (level3). 
 
Coming to your question- how does the concept of hierarchy affect the analysis?
The common multilevel organisational pattern presented here suggests that a core
element in human social organisation involves exchange networks based on flow of
human resources between kinship based social groups (like families) and
non-kinship based social groups (like businesses).  This implies that evolution
of social organisation is based on the emergence of two species classes with
greater complexity and greater compositional hierarchy- kinship based social
groups and non-kinship.
 
The question then are- why and how do living species give rise to exchange
networks between species with increasing complexity (and compositional
hierarchy) ? Will this pattern continue at the next higher level? 
 
Bob Logan and others point to the role of human language and the generation of
conceptual knowedge in the emergence of non-kinship based social groups.  It is
interesting that Timo Honkela and Kohonen generalise these ideas and describe
processes that gives rise to conceptual knowledge in systems of interacting
agents. Do Alphabetic catalysts like DNA and Proteins play a similar role as
human language in the emergence of exchange networks at two different levels?
(see section 4.4., paper II in this kick off email).
 
While many theoretical perspectives have been presented on the evolution of such
systems (Stanley Salthe- Evolving Hierarchial Systems, Ch 8, John Holland-
aggregate agents, Eric Chaission- growing energy rate density, and others) what
is most interesting here is that the CMOP provides opportunity to examine
processes that give rise to such organisation in much greater details. This
could provide more insights into the emergence and evolution of such
organisations. 

Given the diverse research interests and great depth in this group, I would love
to get your views on these questions. Your views are greatly appreciated. 
 
Thanking you,
Regards, 
Nikhil Joshi
 
 
 
 
Given the wide 
-
Dear Nikhil,

I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a consensus might be
reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from the different
perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at instances of
isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely logical (;-).
Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not identical, and
this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a given level
involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it should be
possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and B, the resultant
of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in somewhat different terms.

On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, the use of the term
'self-organization' does not bring any additional knowledge. It diverts
attention from the dynamics of the different flows, which are also affected by
such a multitude of external factors, actual and potential, that the process
could equally well be called hetero-organization.  Also, and I really just ask
this as a question, how does the concept of hierarchy affect the analysis? If as
you write there are different species involved in exchange networks across
ascending levels, what would be important to know are the details of these
exchanges. Here, the above discontinuity between levels seems to be replaced by
a degree of continuity. Your statement implies to me interactions /between/
different levels, but are these interactions bi-directional reactions? How would
the rates of forward and back reactions be related?

I look forward to your comments on the above which I assure you is intended to
be constructive.

Best wishes,

Joseph
 ___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Xueshan Yan]

Dear Joshi,
 
No matter what topic/title you used, no matter what goal you want to reach,
your post has raised a very important theory which can decide the future of
information science: Three Level Theory: Molecular (level1), Cellular
(level2), Social (level3). (Please excuse my minor modification).
 
The FIS colleagues can easily recollect the theory of Cell, Brain, Firm
which was advocated by Pedro about 10 years ago, but I think this hierarchy
is could be much better spent taking some positive action.
 
Social (level3): It can indicate the all human/social information studies.
Cellular (level2): It can indicate the all cellular/biological information
studies.
Molecular (level1): It can indicate the all molecular/chemical information
studies.
XXX (level0): Particlate/physical information studies??
 
As we know, due to the Technological Information Science (It includes
computer science and telecommunications) is not self-organizational, or
antipoetic, so we generally don't consider it as a real information science.
 
With my best regards!
 
Xueshan
Peking University
 
  _  

From: fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On
Behalf Of Nikhil Joshi
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2015 7:35 PM
To: fis@listas.unizar.es >> fis@listas.unizar.es
Cc: Nikhil Joshi
Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel,
Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1


Dear Joseph and Stan,
 
Both of you mention about earlier work on isomorphisms, and you also mention
hetero-organization. If it is not inconvenient, may I request more
information on this? You also mention that the use of self-organisation
could be a distracting, could you recommend an alternate formulation?
 
At this time, I must clarify that I am not suggesting a hierarchical
relationship between the three levels. I am referring to hierarchical
organisation within the species at each level - molecules (level1), cellular
species (level2) and social groups (level3). 
 
Coming to your question- how does the concept of hierarchy affect the
analysis?
The common multilevel organisational pattern presented here suggests that a
core element in human social organisation involves exchange networks based
on flow of human resources between kinship based social groups (like
families) and non-kinship based social groups (like businesses).  This
implies that evolution of social organisation is based on the emergence of
two species classes with greater complexity and greater compositional
hierarchy- kinship based social groups and non-kinship.
 
The question then are- why and how do living species give rise to exchange
networks between species with increasing complexity (and compositional
hierarchy) ? Will this pattern continue at the next higher level? 
 
Bob Logan and others point to the role of human language and the generation
of conceptual knowedge in the emergence of non-kinship based social groups.
It is interesting that Timo Honkela and Kohonen generalise these ideas and
describe processes that gives rise to conceptual knowledge in systems of
interacting agents. Do Alphabetic catalysts like DNA and Proteins play a
similar role as human language in the emergence of exchange networks at two
different levels? (see section 4.4., paper II in this kick off email).
 
While many theoretical perspectives have been presented on the evolution of
such systems (Stanley Salthe- Evolving Hierarchial Systems, Ch 8, John
Holland- aggregate agents, Eric Chaission- growing energy rate density, and
others) what is most interesting here is that the CMOP provides opportunity
to examine processes that give rise to such organisation in much greater
details. This could provide more insights into the emergence and evolution
of such organisations. 

Given the diverse research interests and great depth in this group, I would
love to get your views on these questions. Your views are greatly
appreciated. 
 
Thanking you,
Regards, 
Nikhil Joshi
 
 
 
 
Given the wide 



-
Dear Nikhil,

I think it is a very interesting exercise to see how a consensus might be
reached on your work by both adding to and subtracting from the different
perspectives. Thus, I agree with Stan that we are looking at instances of
isomorphism at different levels, and this for me is entirely logical (;-).
Levels of reality exist and the rules that apply in them are not identical,
and this constitutes a discontinuity between them. Also, within a given
level involving three elements, even if they all influence one another, it
should be possible to decompose the interactions into those between A and B,
the resultant of which interacts with C. This is Pedro's comment in somewhat
different terms.

On the other hand, as I have argued elsewhere, t

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Nikhil and colleagues (Bob, Stan...),

Let me concur with Stan's arguments.  I think you are working with 
original ideas about two different instances of self-organization in  
Nature where  metabolic-energetic flows  are modulated  by third parties 
in order to maintain some maximum of stability in a very complex 
co-assemblage so that it may result compatible with the existing 
limitations of the global environment. It is sort of a fiscal agency or 
an energy police-body that keeps an overall adaptive order in the 
multifarious exchange of flows.


The two instances you describe are widely independent, in spite of the 
relative links existing (in the ecosphere, it is very difficult the 
complete independence). Forcing them into a hierarchy is not the best 
idea, in my opinion, as the two description are quite interesting, 
original, and advanced by themselves--particularly in order to land on 
the global problems of the economic order of our times. Connecting 
meaningfully with the path discussed by Bob and his colleagues requires 
quite a bit of further thinking. Economic organization is based finally 
on symmetry and symmetry breaking at different "levels" (just from the 
double-entry accounting of the agent to the collective market prices and 
valuation of stocks, to the financial coupling with the "real" economy). 
Like in the biological organization of information flows, there is a 
generalized dialectics of balances and modulations, of symmetry and 
symmetry breakings, yes, in some hierarchical framework. Unfortunately 
the information/symmetry topic is far from being properly developed as a 
"complexity engine", except maybe in physics, and we prefer indulging in 
independent disciplinary conceptualizations, preferably inspired in 
mechanics, that obfuscate understanding.


It is a rather difficult discussion... Further efforts from yours and 
your colleagues, and other parties in the list would be needed.  From my 
part, this weekend I will re-read your papers and Bob's links. We cannot 
renounce to advance in this discussion.


All the best--Pedro


Nikhil Joshi wrote:

Dear Stan,
You raise a very interesting and important question.


Recent findings suggest that mycorrhiza could modulate the rate of 
assimilation of molecules (driven by changing rates of photosynthesis) 
across groups of plants by modulating the flow of phosphorous (from 
the subsoil sources) across competing autotrophic species. Such 
modulation alters the overall conversion of geochemical (molecular) 
resources into biomass. Hence the modulatory effects of mycorrhizal 
modulation are at the level of molecular flows between geo-cycles and 
autotrophs (level 1).


What is suggested here is that gut bacteria are involved in the 
modulation of rate of reproduction of cellular and multicellular 
species. Hence their effect is at a cellular level (level 2)
Hence the activities of the two modulator systems are at two different 
scales- molecular and cellular. 

A multilevel view reveals a growing complexity in the species involved 
in exchange networks across ascending levels (compositional hierarchy) 
from molecules, to cells, multicellular species, and social 
Organization. A compositional hierarchy is also seen at each level in 
the emergence of community structure at each level. However, I agree 
that these observations do not constitute a complete description of 
the hierarchal relationships in these systems. The developing a formal 
hierarchical view would provide much clearer view of these systems and 
their interconnections. Given my limited knowledge of formal 
hierarchies, I would appreciate your assurance and views on this. 
Thanking you, 
Warm regards,
Nikhil 


Sent from my iPhone
Nikhil Joshi



--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel, Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1

[Francesco Rizzo]

'self-organization' does not bring any additional knowledge. It diverts
> attention from the dynamics of the different flows, which are also affected
> by such a multitude of external factors, actual and potential, that the
> process could equally well be called hetero-organization.  Also, and I
> really just ask this as a question, how does the concept of hierarchy
> affect the analysis? If as you write there are different species involved
> in exchange networks across ascending levels, what would be important to
> know are the details of these exchanges. Here, the above discontinuity
> between levels seems to be replaced by a degree of continuity. Your
> statement implies to me interactions /between/ different levels, but are
> these interactions bi-directional reactions? How would the rates of forward
> and back reactions be related?
>
> I look forward to your comments on the above which I assure you is
> intended to be constructive.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message - From: "Pedro C. Marijuan" <
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es>
> To: <fis@listas.unizar.es>
> Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 1:39 PM
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Sustainability through multilevel research: The Lifel,
> Deep Society Build-A-Thon - 1
>
>
>
> Dear Nikhil and colleagues (Bob, Stan...),
>>
>> Let me concur with Stan's arguments.  I think you are working with
>> original ideas about two different instances of self-organization in Nature
>> where  metabolic-energetic flows  are modulated  by third parties in order
>> to maintain some maximum of stability in a very complex co-assemblage so
>> that it may result compatible with the existing limitations of the global
>> environment. It is sort of a fiscal agency or an energy police-body that
>> keeps an overall adaptive order in the multifarious exchange of flows.
>>
>> The two instances you describe are widely independent, in spite of the
>> relative links existing (in the ecosphere, it is very difficult the
>> complete independence). Forcing them into a hierarchy is not the best idea,
>> in my opinion, as the two description are quite interesting, original, and
>> advanced by themselves--particularly in order to land on the global
>> problems of the economic order of our times. Connecting meaningfully with
>> the path discussed by Bob and his colleagues requires quite a bit of
>> further thinking. Economic organization is based finally on symmetry and
>> symmetry breaking at different "levels" (just from the double-entry
>> accounting of the agent to the collective market prices and valuation of
>> stocks, to the financial coupling with the "real" economy). Like in the
>> biological organization of information flows, there is a generalized
>> dialectics of balances and modulations, of symmetry and symmetry breakings,
>> yes, in some hierarchical framework. Unfortunately the information/symmetry
>> topic is far from being properly developed as a "complexity engine", except
>> maybe in physics, and we prefer indulging in independent disciplinary
>> conceptualizations, preferably inspired in mechanics, that obfuscate
>> understanding.
>>
>> It is a rather difficult discussion... Further efforts from yours and
>> your colleagues, and other parties in the list would be needed.  From my
>> part, this weekend I will re-read your papers and Bob's links. We cannot
>> renounce to advance in this discussion.
>>
>> All the best--Pedro
>>
>>
>> Nikhil Joshi wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Stan,
>>>> You raise a very interesting and important question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Recent findings suggest that mycorrhiza could modulate the rate of
>>> assimilation of molecules (driven by changing rates of photosynthesis)
>>> across groups of plants by modulating the flow of phosphorous (from the
>>> subsoil sources) across competing autotrophic species. Such modulation
>>> alters the overall conversion of geochemical (molecular) resources into
>>> biomass. Hence the modulatory effects of mycorrhizal modulation are at the
>>> level of molecular flows between geo-cycles and autotrophs (level 1).
>>>
>>> What is suggested here is that gut bacteria are involved in the
>>> modulation of rate of reproduction of cellular and multicellular species.
>>> Hence their effect is at a cellular level (level 2)
>>> Hence the activities of the two modulator systems are at two different
>>> scales- molecular and cellular.
>>> A multilevel view reveals a growing complexity in the species involv