Group process methods for problem solving and planning are now widely used in organizations in the United States. Such methods, which involve active participation by employees, are not often used in Russia. We believe these methods would help Russia move from a centrally planned, authoritarian style of management to a more participatory, information-sharing style of management. Accordingly, two training sessions were held with faculty members at universities in Irkutsk and Novosibirsk. This article describes how these meetings were arranged, the results (...) of the planning activities, and the implications of participatory methods of decision making for organizations in Russia and in other transitional economies. (shrink)

The philosophy of science has traditionally assumed that knowledge should be organized in the form of theories. From theories propositions can be deduced that can be tested in experiments. Most propositions deduced from theories take the form of if-then statements. For example, if variable A increases, what happens to variable B, assuming that all other variables are held constant? However, an alternative way of organizing knowledge, in the form of producer-product relationships, was proposed by the philosopher E.A. Singer, Jr. and (...) advocated by two of his students, C. West Churchman and Russell L. Ackoff. Whether to structure knowledge in the form of theories or methods is related to the question of whether there is a fundamental difference between the natural and the social sciences. As opposed to Karl Popper’s doctrine of the unity of method, this paper argues that structuring knowledge in the form of methods is appropriate in applied fields, particularly in management where a large part of the task is to achieve agreement among a group of knowing subjects on an appropriate set of actions. (shrink)

The Russian people are struggling to learn how to create a democracy and a market economy. This paper reviews the results of reform efforts to date and what the Russian people are learning as indicated by changes in answers to public opinion surveys. As a way to continue the social learning process in Russia we suggest the widespread use of process improvement methods in organizations. This paper describes some Russian experiences in using process improvement methods and proposes a strategy for (...) spreading the use of these methods through universities and then through businesses and government agencies. As people use process improvement methods, they gain confidence in their ability to improve the functioning of organizations and society. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Science: Logic, Strategies, Methods” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: This article argues that we do not need a new scientific method or a “second-order science” to deal with the facts that the individual characteristics of observers may affect the nature and quality of their observations and that the application of scientific theories may affect the systems they describe. It also argues that Umpleby has not given us good reason to think (...) that we do. (shrink)

Understanding the differences between scientific approaches to cybernetics is difficult because of the very different histories and intellectual traditions in Russia and the West, i.e. the U.S. and Europe. This paper, firstly, describes the peculiarities of the Russian style of scientific thinking, considering as an example Alexander Bogdanov’s theory in context of the Russian intellectual tradition. Secondly, the paper compares Vladimir E. Lepskiy’s and Stuart A. Umpleby’s theories of cybernetics looking at them through the prism of Russian and (...) American intellectual traditions. Western cybernetics of the second order includes biological and social versions. It arose from “experimental epistemology.” The goal was to understand the processes of cognition on the basis of neurophysiological experiments, as a result of which cyberneticians came to the conclusion that the observer cannot be excluded from science. Biological cybernetics is concerned with how the brain creates descriptions of the world. Little attention is paid to the world since it already is included in the perceptions of the observer. Social cybernetics is concerned with how people act in the world. Theories or descriptions are thought to be less important than appropriate actions. The Russian interpretation of second-order cybernetics develops its social version. The paper concludes that the differences described demonstrate the great potential for ideas from Russian and Western scientists to enrich further development of cybernetics and science in East and West. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: This commentary looks at the parallel developments in contiguous fields that include and encourage multiple viewpoints and the validity of multiple positions. I contend that necessity will overcome the resistance to disturbing the status quo of power structures when the stakes become high enough.

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: While I agree with most of the thrust of second-order cybernetics, I find the dichotomy of first- vs. second-order cybernetics conceptually and historically problematic because it implicitly conflates the cybernetics of nonhuman systems with realist conceptions of observer-free science. The dichotomy may be divisive and unhealthy for cybernetics by driving natural scientists and engineers out of the movement, thereby undermining (...) the universality of its principles. (shrink)

A fascinating exploration of the very essence of life itself sheds new light on the order and evolution in complex life systems and defines and explains autonomous agents and work within the contexts of thermodynamics and information theory, setting the stage for a dramatic technological revolution. 50,000 first printing.

Stuart Kauffman here presents a brilliant new paradigm for evolutionary biology, one that extends the basic concepts of Darwinian evolution to accommodate recent findings and perspectives from the fields of biology, physics, chemistry and mathematics. The book drives to the heart of the exciting debate on the origins of life and maintenance of order in complex biological systems. It focuses on the concept of self-organization: the spontaneous emergence of order widely observed throughout nature. Kauffman here argues that self-organization plays (...) an important role in the emergence of life itself and may play as fundamental a role in shaping life's subsequent evolution as does the Darwinian process of natural selection. Yet until now no systematic effort has been made to incorporate the concept of self-organization into evolutionary theory. The construction requirements which permit complex systems to adapt remain poorly understood, as is the extent to which selection itself can yield systems able to adapt more successfully. This book explores these themes. It shows how complex systems, contrary to expectations, can spontaneously exhibit stunning degrees of order, and how this order, in turn, is essential for understanding the emergence and development of life on Earth. Topics include the new biotechnology of applied molecular evolution, with its important implications for developing new drugs and vaccines; the balance between order and chaos observed in many naturally occurring systems; new insights concerning the predictive power of statistical mechanics in biology; and other major issues. Indeed, the approaches investigated here may prove to be the new center around which biologicalscience itself will evolve. The work is written for all those interested in the cutting edge of research in the life sciences. (shrink)

In this fascinating read, Kauffman concludes that the development of life on earth is not entirely predictable, because no theory could ever fully account for the limitless variations of evolution. Sure to cause a stir, this book will be discussed for years to come and may even set the tone for the next "great thinker.".

Explores the possiblity and process of evolution beyond the standard and established scientific principles.

James E. Huchingson's Pandemonium Tremendum draws on a surprisingly fruitful analogy between metaphysics and thermodynamics, with the latter motivated through the more accessible language of communication theory. In Huchingson's model, God nurtures creation by the selective communication of bits of order that arise spontaneously in chaos.

Attempts to ‘naturalize’ phenomenology challenge both traditional phenomenology and traditional approaches to cognitive science. They challenge Edmund Husserl’s rejection of naturalism and his attempt to establish phenomenology as a foundational transcendental discipline, and they challenge efforts to explain cognition through mainstream science. While appearing to be a retreat from the bold claims made for phenomenology, it is really its triumph. Naturalized phenomenology is spearheading a successful challenge to the heritage of Cartesian dualism. This converges with the reaction against Cartesian thought (...) within science itself. Descartes divided the universe between res cogitans, thinking substances, and res extensa, the mechanical world. The latter won with Newton and we have, in most of objective science since, literally lost our mind, hence our humanity. Despite Darwin, biologists remain children of Newton, and dream of a grand theory that is epistemologically complete and would allow lawful entailment of the evolution of the biosphere. This dream is no longer tenable. We now have to recognize that science and scientists are within and part of the world we are striving to comprehend, as proponents of endophysics have argued, and that physics, biology and mathematics have to be reconceived accordingly. Interpreting quantum mechanics from this perspective is shown to both illuminate conscious experience and reveal new paths for its further development. In biology we must now justify the use of the word “function”. As we shall see, we cannot prestate the ever new biological functions that arise and constitute the very phase space of evolution. Hence, we cannot mathematize the detailed becoming of the biosphere, nor write differential equations for functional variables we do not know ahead of time, nor integrate those equations, so no laws “entail” evolution. The dream of a grand theory fails. In place of entailing laws, a post-entailing law explanatory framework is proposed in which Actuals arise in evolution that constitute new boundary conditions that are enabling constraints that create new, typically unprestatable, Adjacent Possible opportunities for further evolution, in which new Actuals arise, in a persistent becoming. Evolution flows into a typically unprestatable succession of Adjacent Possibles. Given the concept of function, the concept of functional closure of an organism making a living in its world, becomes central. Implications for patterns in evolution include historical reconstruction, and statistical laws such as the distribution of extinction events, or species per genus, and the use of formal cause, not efficient cause, laws. (shrink)

When two populations of cells within a tissue mass differ from one another in magnitude or type of intercellular adhesions, a boundary can form within the tissue, across which cells will fail to mix. This phenomenon may occur regardless of the identity of the molecules that mediate cell adhesion. If, in addition, a choice between the two adhesive states is regulated by a molecule the concentration of which is periodic in space, or in time, then alternating bands of non‐mixing tissue, (...) or segments, can form. But temporal or spatial periodicities in concentration will tend to arise for any molecule that is positively autoregu‐latory. It is therefore proposed that segmentation is a ‘generic’ property of metazoan organisms, and that metamerism would be expected to have emerged numerous times during evolution. A simple model of segmentation, based solely on differential adhesion and periodic regulation of adhesion, can account for segment properties as disparate as those seen in long and short germ band insects, and for diverse experimental results on boundary regeneration in the chick hind brain and the insect cuticle. It is suggested that the complex, multicom‐ponent segment‐forming systems found in contemporary organisms (e.g., Drosophila) are the products of evolutionary recruitment of molecular cues such as homeobox gene products, that increase the reliability and stability of metameric patterns originally templated by generic self‐organizing properties of tissues. (shrink)

We argue that the physics of complex materials and self-organizing processes should be made central to the biology of form. Rather than being encoded in genes, form emerges when cells and certain of their molecules mobilize physical forces, effects, and processes in a multicellular context. What is inherited from one generation to the next are not genetic programs for constructing organisms, but generative mechanisms of morphogenesis and pattern formation and the initial and boundary conditions for reproducing the specific traits of (...) a taxon. There is no inherent antagonism between this “physicalist” perspective and genetics, since physics acts on matter, and gene products are essential material components of living systems whose variability affects the systems’ parameters. We make this notion concrete by summarizing the concept of “dynamical patterning modules” (DPMs; Newman and Bhat, Phys Biol 5:1–14, 2008; Int J Dev Biol 53:693–705, 2009), an explicit physico-genetic framework for the origin and evolution of multicellular form in animals, as well as (when differences in interaction toolkit genes and applicable physical processes are taken into account) in multicellular plants (Hernández-Hernández et al., Int J Dev Biol 56:661–674, 2012). DPMs provide the missing link between development and evolution by revealing how genes acting in concert with physics can generate and transform morphology in a heritable fashion. (shrink)

At Home in the Universe presents and extends the intellectual core ofKauffman's earlier book The Origins of Order (OUP 1993) for any intelligentgeneral reader can understand and appreciate. The reader is very effectivelyinvited into Kauffman's vision and thought processes, in one of the moreexhilarating and important books of popular science.

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: The process of writing a discussion case study requires that a researcher become embedded in the domain being studied; it entails constructing a reality as it is perceived by the participants; it demands a high level of humility, since complex environments have a tendency to thwart rational reasoning processes. Unfortunately, these very characteristics lead conventional researchers to disparage case writing, (...) even questioning whether it warrants the label of “research.” The propositions of second-order cybernetics offer a glimmer of hope to those of us who continue to write cases, as they inform us that what we are doing is science, just a different flavor of science. (shrink)

During vertebrate limb development, various genes of the Hox family, the products of which influence skeletal element identity, are expressed in specific spatiotemporal patterns in the limb bud mesenchyme. At the same time, the cells also exhibit ‘self‐organizing’ behavior – interacting with each other via extracellular matrix and cell‐cell adhesive molecules to form the arrays of mesenchymal condensations that lead to the cartilaginous skeletal primordia. A recent study by Yokouchi et al.(1) establishes a connection between these phenomena. They misexpressed the (...) product of the Hoxa‐13 gene in chick limb buds and demonstrated both skeletal pattern perturbations and changes in cell‐cell adhesivity in mesenchyme aberrantly expressing this protein. (shrink)

Open peer commentary on the article “Second-Order Cybernetics as a Fundamental Revolution in Science” by Stuart A. Umpleby. Upshot: Theory without a strong methodology is stranded in philosophy. Principles devolved from theory can be applied to situations in the arena of practice in many ways; however, a continually improving science must refine its theories with feedback from data drawn from the use of continually improving sets of codified methodologies. Second-order cybernetics is contingent upon sense-making within sapient systems. A (...) perspective on cognitive science points toward the requirements for an enabling sense-making methodology for second-order cybernetic science. (shrink)

Heyman's target article contributes to our understanding of addictions by offering solutions to several paradoxes and by recognizing the stable nature of addictive behavior. Previous classical and operant conditioning models have emphasized molecular processes, such as acquisition and extinction, and have failed to address the aggregate effects of long-term exposure to the contingencies of drug and alcohol use.

Rips, in The Psychology of Proof, argues that, through the processes of evolution, logic (e.g., modus ponens) has become established in the human mind as the basis for thinking, and that production systems rest on this foundation. In this paper we defend the converse argument that, through evolution, a production system architecture has become the basis for human thinking, and that formal logics rest on this production system and the accompanying mechanisms for recognition and search. It is through the “automaticity” (...) of the execution of productions that we experience the compellingness of deductive arguments. (shrink)

This book is concerned with, and makes an important contribution to, answering the central question of evolutionary theory: By what mechanisms and processes do organisms undergo transformative change? Animals or plants may undergo alterations in morphology or activity during their lifetimes, but only if such alterations are conveyed to the next generation can they contribute to the establishment of new forms. Heritability by itself is not decisive: offspring can differ from their parents at a variety of genetic loci without this (...) constituting evolutionary change, notwithstanding the fact that on theoretical grounds the standard model, stemming from the Modern Synthesis, asserts that any such variation represents incipient evolution (i.e., evolution is change in allele frequency). Clearly, some gene changes make more of an evolutionary difference than others. By placing phenotype at center stage and treating genotypes not in terms of their selective advantage, but rather with respect to the changes they exert on the phenotype, the author subtly but significantly reorients the explanatory terrain of evolutionary theory. (shrink)