|
"Avoidance of competition," Kormondy said, "is
the principle
purpose of speciation." For the effective operation of natural selection, some mechanisms for
increasing diversity are necessary. Robert Rosen
discussed the
role of error in complex social systems as such a mechanism.
In a differentiated society different individuals in the culture spend their times in different
spectrums of activities. "As a result," Rosen said, "their own internal models of what the culture
is like will be different. So, too, will be the features of the culture which these individuals
regard as essential for the survival of the culture and their strategies for ensuring survival." He
made the point that, "What we interpret as error is really an inevitable correlate of complexity
itself and this, in fact, is what provides the richness for evolutionary processes. Indeed the
concept of error becomes meaningless outside the context of complex systems."
As mentioned earlier, Rosen's definition of a complex system is a system with which we interact
with in complex ways. With this different approach he offered the converse of that by calling a
simple system one with which we interact only in a few ways, or in one single mode of system
description. Complexity in this case is not an intrinsic property of the system, but a property of
our capacity to interact with it.
Any particular mode of complex activity, however, can be regarded as if it were a simple
system. This is a corollary of the basic assertion we proposed earlier, namely that in
carrying out any single functional activity, a complex system uses primarily only a small
number of its available degrees of freedom (i.e, of its capacity to interact with other
systems). Indeed, this fact is basic to all of the abstractions which make scientific
analysis possible; we simply abstract out all of the apparently inessential properties of the
system leaving behind one simple system, with one specific interactive capability.
Systems that are simple in this case cannot make errors, they are governed by behavioral laws,
"Which cannot be violated within the framework of the simple system itself." In a complex
system many functional interactions are taking place simultaneously. Each utilizes only a small
fraction of the available degrees of freedom of the system. While they can be abstractly
separated into unique systems, in reality each must have some effect on all the others. The
difference between the behavior of these systems as abstracted and as found in reality, is what
Rosen called error, or variability.
As well as considering the error arising from a deviation between the behavior; of an abstracted
simple system and the same system in its complex setting, we can consider as error the
difference between the actual behavior of a system and the behavior most appropriate for
reaching a specified goal. Rosen pointed out that what is important for complex systems is the
difference between these two views of error.
Let us suppose that we have a set of simple complex systems, such as a population of
organisms initially exhibiting the same response to a particular environmental stimulus.
Let us suppose that this response is an appropriate one, so that we can say that the
organisms are behaving correctly, Since the organisms are complex they can interact
with the environment in diverse ways besides the one we regard as the stimulus, and
these interactions will affect the way the organisms are responding to the stimulus. Thus,
over time the initial identical response Pattern of the organisms will become a spectrum
of different responses some of which are still appropriate and some of which are
inappropriate or erroneous. Here, of course, the propriety of the response is judged by
some criteria of selection which is imposed on the population. If the criteria is changed,
so will the propriety of any particular response, It is easy to see that any change in
selection pressure, which make previously correct responses no longer appropriate and
which makes previously incorrect responses become appropriate, would wipe out a
population which could only make the initial response in this way it is correct to say that
error is a driving force for evolution. A population of simple organisms could not evolve
and indeed could not survive a change in selection pressure. Thus evolution and
complexity are concepts which are inexorably linked to each other.
Presenting a model of a complex system with the objective capability of determining the
appropriateness of specific behaviors requires an external observer. Participants in a cultural
system are not external observers, and not objective. As mentioned earlier, in a differentiated
society individuals within the society spend their time in different activities. As a result, their
internal models of their own culture are not alike, and neither are their perceptions of what
should be considered appropriate behavior
Let us spend a moment discussing the nature of selection. The external world acts both to
impose stresses upon a culture and to judge the appropriateness of the response of the
culture as a whole. The external world thus sits in the position of an outside observer.
Since selection acts on the culture as a wúhole, there is only an indirect eff'ect of
selection on the members of the culture and hence on their internal models of the culture.
This is, indeed, a characteristic property of aggregates like multi-cellular organisms or
societies; namely, that selection acts not directly on the individual members of the
aggregate, but on the aggregate as a whole. We have seen that the behaviorús of the
aggregate as a whole are not clearly recognizable by any of the members of the aggregate
and therefore none of the internal models of the aggregate can comprehend the manner in
which selection is operating. Stated another way, the members of a culture respond
primarily to each other and to each others model rather than to the stresses imposed on
the culture by the external world. They cannot judge the behavior of the culture in terms
of appropriateness at all, but only in terms of deviations from their internal models.
A source of cultural stress is that difference between individual perceptions of appropriate
systems behavior and those of a mythical outside observer. For an example Rosen posed the
problem of a culture faced with environmental change.
Let us consider a culture behaving appropriately under a particular set of meteorological
conditions. Let us suppose that these conditions become much more arid over a short
space of time. Clearly, the old behaviors related to subsistence will now become
inappropriate. From the standpoint of an external observer, the culture as a whole should
respond to the changed situation either by developing new technologies (connected with
irrigation and water conservation) or it should migrate to a new region in which its old
behaviors will continue to be appropriate. However, if the internal models of the culture
are such as to inhibit the developments of the new technologies or of the necessary
migration, the culture as a whole would be seen to be producing a wholly inappropriate
response, even though from the standpoint of those internal to the culture, there is no
error. The converse of the above example is also true; namely, a particular cultural
behavior can look erroneous to all of the memberús of the culture on the basis of their
own internal models, but that behavior can be perfectly appropriate from the standpoint
of the external observer.
Since the internal models of a differentiated culture cannot grasp the culture as a whole, if
decision-making within the culture is made entirely on the basis of internal models there is very
little chance that these decisions will result in appropriate behavior. In a multi-cellular organism,
Rosen explained, the aggregate itself becomes capable of sensing and responding to the
environment directly thereby developing an internal model of the external world within itself.
The whole point of a culture is to prevent the external world from impinging directly on its
members. Members of a culture can only have models of each other. Clearly, a new level of
organization would be required, one the culture is very far from developing. As Rosen puts it,
"Most species of multi-cellular organisms are nowúextinct as a consequence of behaving
inappropriately. Nevertheless our chances for survival are far greater in the presence of a
mechanism to sense appropriateness than in its absence."
|