Talk:Systems theory (disambiguation)

Do not archive!

See Talk:Systems theory/Permission for permissions for use of the ISSS logo.

The article was removed to Talk:Systems theory/Draft. See below for an explanation.

Talk:Systems theory/Draft was then moved to Talk:Systems theory/Notes.

Disambiguation page was made from Systems theory and Talk:Systems theory/Notes was then again renamed Talk:Systems theory (general)/Notes.

First draft

I took a early copy of the Wikipedia article (Most of which had been subsequently deleted by wikipedians in the present article)which was edited and approved by Marcus Schwaninger, Alex Laszlo, Doug Walton and I, and placed it here. Several additions and revisions were then made here by me. Alex Laszlo wrote "Nice, but you left out a word" Matthew Shapiro questions the significance of placing ISSS in the second paragraph. I agree about the ISSS, but want to place how systems began there.

I tend to think that the formulation of systems theory as a authentic science was accomplished by Ludwig von Bertalanffy, generally regarded as the father of General Systems Theory, which systems theory is derived from. Elsewhere, it was mentioned that a general system theory was conceived of by at least two authors prior to von Bertalanffy's contribution. As far as I can tell, almost everyone in ISSS considers Bertalanffy et al, as the founder. Especially in light of his publication of his book General Systems Theory. Thomas Mandel 22:20, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Subsequently I have removed all previous Wikipedia content, Thomas Mandel 21:54, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Format

This article is currently looking like a mess and needs reformatting. Yi Zhe Wu 18:03, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I just started. Thanks for the right thumb. Thomas Mandel 20:48, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I read on your user page that you are a high school student interested in literature, history and law. what is your experience with "formatting" and can you be more specific about the kind of formatting you are talking about? Can you help me with formatting the lists at the end of the article? I don't know how to do that right. Thomas Mandel 21:16, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

I was talking about the Wiki markup and the section headings, not the substantive formatting of the article. Sorry for the confusion. When I first spotted the article, there was no section headings, but now it is a lot better. For lists, the * (asterisk) is the bullet. I just used this way to format the external link section. Thanks! Yi Zhe Wu 23:02, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Glad to meet you. I sure can use help with the wiki formatting. I figured the astric opps astrisk, out and made some changes myself. Are you familair with Chinese philosophy. I know it is not a philosophy but you know what I mean. I need to learn how to do references next.Thomas Mandel 01:02, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Well, I know a little bit of Chinese philosophy, like the basics of Confucianism and such ("confusion"ism :-) ) but not in depth. For references, put <ref>text you want to put in reference</ref> and then in the end of the article add a reference section header and under that insert {{reflist}}. Regards. Yi Zhe Wu 15:33, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Reviewed

Alexander Laszlo: "Nice, except the Glossary entry for Evolutionary Systems Design is listed as Evolutionary Systems (i.e., there's a word missing)."

Bela A. Banathy: "Tom ... NEAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ..... keep me in the loop ...

Jieranai Maier: "Well Congratulations! Great Job Well Done Thomas!"

Wikipedia credit?

An earlier version of the article came from WP, didn't it? Is there some reason we aren't checking the "Content is from Wikipedia?" box? --Larry Sanger 02:44, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

All wikipedia content has been removed/revised with the exception of the lists at the bottom. If necessary I can remove those too. Thomas Mandel 07:48, 7 June 2007 (CDT)

Big issues here

I searched the major electronic resources of a large well-funded university to discover what I could about this topic. I found next to nothing, an article or two about Bertalanffy and an ebook or two on the topic that one can find by searching amazon with the term. Also, the field of engineering apparently has a System theory that differs from this topic. I searched with Margaret Mead Systems Theory and found nothing. I Googled those terms just out of curiosity, too, and found a few things from an advocacy perspective that essentially just make an bald assertion about the matter, plus WP's article and CZ's article mentioning it[1], (this article shows in Google page 2 with what it used to say, "Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson also had extensive dialogue to discuss transdisciplinary principles of systems theory, such as positive and negative feedback, into the social sciences."). As a student of anthropology and as one with respect for Mead, I find this very troubling, to put it mildly.

The comments about Mead come from Wikipedia. Margaret Mead was elected the president of the Society for General Systems Research.

Thomas Mandel 18:34, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I googled Systems Theory and came up with 241,000,000, picking one of the first, I found this on a nursing website -"Understanding General Systems Theory-This theory was developed by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy in 1936. He felt the need for a theory to guide research in several disciplines because he saw striking parallels among them. His hunch was that if multiple disciplines focused their research & theory development efforts, they would be able to identify laws & principles which would apply to many systems. This would allow scholars & scientists to make sense of system charactieristics such as wholeness, differentiation, order, equifinality, progression & others. With a common framework, scientists could better communicate their findings with each other & build upon each other's work. He believed that over time, what was discovered would come to be applicable to life in general."

Much of science has come to use the principles of a system. Complementarity in quantum physics. The science of complexity is derived from complex systems, involving the usage of computers. Psychology uses family theory which is systems based. Even literature is studied as a system. The human body is one system after another, from DNA up to consciousness. Although the science of consciousness has to decide what consciousness is. Management uses systems thinking- interactive management for example. Even electromechanics is replete with systems. Gaia is a ecosystem and ecosystem is a very good example of a system. All of these and more are systems having parts which work-together in mutual interrelationships and in the process, create new systems. THe value of systems theory, Banathy tells us, is that we cannot know characteristics of the whole by a study of te isolated parts. This is new to science (reductionism) which reduced the study to a single object. And even if we try to put these parts back together. we still will not find those new properties. Gell Mann, one of the founders of complexity theory says, "Today the network of relationships linking the human race to itself and to the rest of the biosphere is so complex that all aspects affect all others to an extraordinary degree. Someone should be studying the whole system, however crudely that has to be done, because no gluing together of partial studies of a complex nonlinear system can give a good idea of the behavoir of the whole." Thomas Mandel 20:01, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I'd be inclined to begin an article about Systems Theory something like this:

Systems theory refers to a body of thought and way of thinking held among a small minority of thinkers across various disciplines. Systems theory primarily traces itself to a work by biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy, General System Theory, in which he sought to bring under one philosophical heading his thoughts about organismic structures. Bertalanffy argued [fill in core argument]. Adherents of system theory have gone on to apply Bertalanffy's thought to [fill in details]. Adherents today often find home for their ideas within the movement's organizing body, the International Society for the System Sciences (ISSS)....

Just a quick sketch, of course, but it gets across the gist of the idea. As this article reads now, it seems to scream of advocacy with CZ as its platform. I do not at all think this represents a neutral, scholarly encyclopedia article about the topic. It actually reminds me almost "to the T" of what CZ once had at Heterodox economics.

Stephen Ewen 04:46, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

What you are defining is what we call the systems movement. Here Klir writes in the International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. p 361, Systems Movement - "A loose assciation of worldwide scale of people from different disciplines of science, engineering. philosophy and other areas, who share a common interest in ideas (concepts, principles, methods,, etc.,that are applicable to all systems and that, consequencly transcend the boundaries of traditional science.

That how we write an encyclopedia.

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

"The International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics" is described as "a sort of self-referential work of reference".[2] I think this screams that my suggested intro and earlier comments are right on mark. I suggest you may have significant difficulty determining advocacy from neutrality and what would comprise a balanced encyclopedia article in this case. Stephen Ewen 14:29, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Self-referential is a concept used in systems thinking used often to describe living systems or organizationally closed systems which maintain their identity without reference to the environment. I doubt that it means self-promoting. It may even be the opposite since one of its meanings is that a self-referential science applies to itself what it applies to its subject...Thomas Mandel

I take to mean that the work is self-referential in the sense that a dictionary is self-referential: it is impossible to write a definition without using words, and when you start looking up the definitions of those words, you're bound to find a definition that uses the word you started with. That being said, "self-referential" is kind of a trendy term, and its use in this context reflects this, but it is hardly without meaning or significance. I'm not a fan of systems theory (because what I've seen is vague, imprecise, and lacking in theoretical content), but it does seeem to me that a lot of the discussion here involves failure to communicate and problems that don't really exist. I do find the enthusiasm with which some people advocate for general systems theory (whatever it is) a bit troublesome, but that doesn't really seem to be grounds for not having an article. The issue of the web site seems like a non-issue, too. I'm a member of IEEE, but it seems rather silly to say that means I shouldn't be a Computers editor. None of that should change if I were a webmaster. Greg Woodhouse 11:13, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Some comments

See Principia Cybernetica Web. I believe systems theory and systems science are synonymous, both being an outgrowth of cybernetics, and more of an intellectual movement than anything else. That's not necessarily bad, but my personal opinion is that what goes under the aegis of systems theory does not (yet, anyway) have that much to contribute to science, but it may way well have had an important effect in inspiring people to pursue particular lines of research. The opening paragraph of the web page is worth quoting:

Cybernetics and Systems Science (also: "(General) Systems Theory" or "Systems Research") constitute a somewhat fuzzily defined academic domain, that touches virtually all traditional disciplines, from mathematics, technology and biology to philosophy and the social sciences. It is more specifically related to the recently developing "sciences of complexity", including AI, neural networks, dynamical systems, chaos, and complex adaptive systems. Its history dates back to the 1940's and 1950's when thinkers such as Wiener, von Bertalanffy, Ashby and von Foerster founded the domain through a series of interdisciplinary meetings.

I think that about sums it up. Today, cybernetics is not terribly fashionable, though I think AI is a bit on the rebound, robotics is strong, as is cognitive science. I've never been impressed by attempts make sweeping generalizations based on what we know about complexity and chaos in mathematics, but talk of chaos and complexity (and they are not the same thing) that never tries to even define these basic concepts is inherently suspect, in my opinion. Greg Woodhouse 15:34, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Systems theory is not an outgrowth of Cybernetics. Cybernetics, which emerged at about the same time as systems theory, is a particular type of system, system is a fruit, cybernetics is an apple. Apple is fruit, fruit is not just an apple. Thomas Mandel

Here is an accurate explanation --Cybernetics Today The term "cybernetics" has been widely misunderstood, perhaps for two broad reasons. First, its identity and boundary are difficult to grasp. The nature of its concepts and the breadth of its applications, as described above, make it difficult for non-practitioners to form a clear concept of cybernetics. This holds even for professionals of all sorts, as cybernetics never became a popular discipline in its own right; rather, its concepts and viewpoints seeped into many other disciplines, from sociology and psychology to design methods and post-modern thought. Second, the advent of the prefix "cyb" or "cyber" as a referent to either robots ("cyborgs") or the Internet ("cyberspace") further diluted its meaning, to the point of serious confusion to everyone except the small number of cybernetic experts.

However, the concepts and origins of cybernetics have become of greater interest recently, especially since around the year 2000. Lack of success by AI to create intelligent machines has increased curiosity toward alternative views of what a brain does [Ashby 1960] and alternative views of the biology of cognition [Maturana 1970]. There is growing recognition of the value of a "science of subjectivity" that encompasses both objective and subjective interactions, including conversation [Pask 1976]. Designers are rediscovering the influence of cybernetics on the tradition of 20th-century design methods, and the need for rigorous models of goals, interaction, and system limitations for the successful development of complex products and services, such as those delivered via today's software networks. And, as in any social cycle, students of history reach back with minds more open than was possible at the inception of cybernetics, to reinterpret the meaning and contribution of a previous era.

---

Merrilee H. Salmon, "What Can Systems Theory Do for Archaeology?" American Antiquity, 1978 Society for American Archaeology.

The article says "Systems Theory is indiscriminately applied to what she calls "General Systems Theory" (what this article is about) and "Mathematical Systems Theory". She asks whether either have anything to offer the field of archeology and concludes "neither has much to offer archeology".

She goes on the say, "general Systems theory is not a genuine theory. it has established no general principles that are applicable to all systems [but is] a program to develop such a theory [that has] become enmeshed in basic difficulties at such a basic level that it has never really gotten off the ground."

Stephen Ewen 15:47, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Just to be clear, all of my posts here are me acting as an author. Stephen Ewen 16:39, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Merilee Salmon is a distinguished philosopher, the author of a standard logic text, and wife of Wesley Salmon, the famous philosopher of science. Still, this is just her opinion, even if it is a very common one. --Larry Sanger 16:42, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Clarify about Mead: I above stated, "I searched with Margaret Mead Systems Theory and found nothing." I did find hits and such, correlating association with adherence. But given her prolific pen, one would expect to find things from her own pen on the matter. I've not been able to find such. Stephen Ewen 16:44, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

If you would have looked at the references I provided you would have noticed that Margaret Mead was President of the Society for General Systems Research 1972 - 1973.[3] Thomas Mandel 19:09, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I've seen that repeated over and over and over again. All it necessarily means is that Margaret Mead was President of the Society for General Systems Research 1972-1973. The question is not what someone infers from the association, or makes a correlation to, but what did Mead say about it. Stephen Ewen 20:36, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

She said "Never underestimate the power of a few committed individuals to change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

I think it's worth noting that there are a lot of ideas here with which I think mathematicians and computer scientists would generally be sympathetic. In broad strokes, if we suppose that systems (examples of which are electronic switches, competing populations of fish, or tropical storms) then those systems will typically involve self-reference (or, poetically, non-linearity) which leads, in turn, to emergent phenomena (turbulence, population spikes) that are difficult to predict or understand because tiny variations (say adding another fish) can lead to large scale changes (these are called bifurcations). Chaos (a concept that is often not clearly defined) is a situation where this type of sensititivity to initial conditions become "typical". In mathematics, these are all terms that have a precise meaning, and chaotic (or just nonlinear) systems can be studied systematically. What is going on here is that a broad observation, namely that phenomena that we would consider "interesting" and "non-trivial" all, at bottom, owe their existence to nonlinear or self-referential structures. Now, obviously, this is not something that can be objectively tested (or even precisely stated!) but is a kind of "theme" or "guiding principle" with which I think many people are sympathetic, whether they would accept the more radical claims of system theory or not. So, in a certain sense, I think this whole discussion misses the point. Systems theory itself may not be widely accepted as a useful way of thinking about the world, but it does represent one (mainly historical, in my opinion) expression of an intellectual current that is very real, and one that has led to fundamental insights in mathematics and the sciences. Greg Woodhouse 17:10, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

First of all "systematically" is not one of the definition of system we use to describe what a system does. If you want to talk mathematics, the closest is category theory. I am not saying that an electronic switch is not a system, but it isn't an example we would use to explain it to someone else. Thomas Mandel 19:21, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Greg, according to the article "What Can Systems Theory Do for Archaeology?" I posted earlier, "Systems Theory is indiscriminately applied to what she calls "General Systems Theory" and "Mathematical Systems Theory". It seems the article is muddling the two. Stephen Ewen 17:52, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I understand that. I suppose that, to me, population biology, storm behavior and (say) visual perception are rather different areas of research. I don't think I could even give you a definition of general systems theory. I just think of it as the idea that the "same" (whatever that means in this context) principles that are used in these specific disciplines ought to apply (in some unspecified way) to arbitrary systems (again, whatever that means). My intent is not to offer an apologetic for systems theory as to offer a little background, and suggest why some people may find the topic worth writing about. I do generally agree with the criticisms you cite. But, on the other hand, it seems to me that many of the most interesting and successful scientific theories started out by applying ideas to a domain where they don't seem to belong. So, in that sense, I perhaps try to reserve judgment a bit longer. Returning to the matter at hand, I think the trend in science today is toward a kind of pragmatic minimalism: a neuroscientist may develop mathematical models for systems consisting of a single (or very few) neurons, or an epidemiologist may look at highly simplified models of disease transmission. Looking for a grand synthesis right off the bat, without really having a clear understanding of simple systems doesn't strike me as a very useful approach. Greg Woodhouse 19:13, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

See [4]Thomas Mandel 23:51, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Article checklist

Could someone please fill out the article checklist on this article. We need to determine editorship of this article. --Matt Innis (Talk) 14:32, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Considering the founder's background, and in lieu of anything broader, I think Biology and Philosophy. --Larry Sanger 14:45, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I would drop Biology. At most, it is one area where these ideas have been applied, and not in any way fundamental to the discipline itself. This may seem odd, but you might consider adding History. What else would you use as a category for a (now somewhat dated) intellectual movement? Greg Woodhouse 15:39, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Logo and link to author's site

This graphic

wrap

was created by Thomas Mandel, and as such, to be consistent with the spirit (if not the letter) of our Policy on Self-Promotion, it can be added to the article only by someone other than Mr. Mandel. --Larry Sanger 20:21, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

David Ing, VP of Education and Communication will reinsert the graphic when he makes a dent in his "backlog."Thomas Mandel 18:42, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

For the same reason (regarding self-promotion), I've removed this link:

• International Society for the System Sciences [5]

it will have to be someone other than Mr. Mandel to add the link. --Larry Sanger 20:24, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

But the image itself does not indicate or promote its origin or author. Yi Zhe Wu 20:36, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

The image file page does. --Larry Sanger 21:02, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

It would be very nice and friendly if someone would add the graphic. Thomas Mandel 21:07, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I have no desire to promote myself in any way. I do not even mention myself in my own work. (It is a tradition for an artist to sign his work.)I mention my work only for your information. If I were promoting myself/beliefs, I would have said that systems science is Western Zen. Thomas Mandel 20:59, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Isn't "self-promotion" unwarranted?

1) ISSS (renamed) is the first systems society.

2) It has been claimed that the first paragraph is self-promoting. It reads

Systems theory is a transdisciplinary and multiperspectual scientific inquiry that studies structure and properties of systems in terms of their relationships. It is through these mutually interactive relationships that new properties of the whole emerge. Of considerable significance to system researchers, these new properties of the whole cannot be found in the isolated elements. An example -- the wetness of H2O. The domains of system philosophy, methodology and application complement this science. The field of scientific inquiry is known as system science.

I really need help determining exactly what in the paragraph promotes anything. From my perspective, they are all facts which those in our field take as common knowledge. Thomas Mandel 20:54, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

The answer is simple: if those are the facts, then someone else who knows them will have no problem adding them in. The policy is the policy. --Larry Sanger 20:59, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

I don't understand. Are you saying that I cannot add anything to the article because I am someone who works with the information? There is no reference to any marketable organization in the first paragraphThomas Mandel 21:08, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

It sounds like you are telling me that I cannot author this article because I know what I am writing about. Thomas Mandel 21:13, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

No, obviously the ground for the objection is that as webmaster for the ISSS, you are associated with them. The policy, therefore, applies. The solution is simple. You merely have to persuade someone to add the information back into the article for you. If the ISSS is as important as you say it is, this should be easy to do. Over and out. --Larry Sanger 21:14, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Just for the record, while I did create isss.org and was webmaster for seven years, I am not the webmaster anymore, I was and still am the chair/facilitor of the Primer Project, an attempt to write a systems Primer. Thomas Mandel

Article neutrality problem

Thomas, I'm sorry to have to tell you that in its present form, the article is an uncritical and biased presentation of a theory that is very far from being mainstream science. Therefore, I have moved the article to Talk:Systems theory/Draft. We very much welcome a good, neutral article about this subject. An article that is consistent with our Neutrality Policy will make two radical improvements over the article in its present form.

(1) It will be rewritten so that the conclusions of Systems Theory are not presented as if they were fact. To take just one example:

The basic principles found in all systems to some degree operate by the principle of wholeness, the principle of relationship, the principle of emergence, the principle of hierarchy, the principle of feedback and the principle of mutual interaction. "Purpose, process, interaction, integration, and emergence are salient markers of understanding systems", Banathy writes.

To say this without qualification is to say that it is known, according to CZ, that "the basic principles...operate by the principle of wholeness..."

(2) The article will fully state objections and/or the general reception that Systems Theory has received by the general scientific community. --Larry Sanger 21:14, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Well I knew/hoped we could be reasonable. Thank you very much for the draft status, I wanted that myself all along. You should put every brand new article into the draft status until it is good enough to move to actual article *But not approved yet)

I am not sure how we can state a philosophical principle as a fact. Are you saying that our facts should be presented as "Systemists believe/think/assume/that parts make up a whole if they work together" Something like that? Facts then would only be something like "it is ten o'clock somewhere." I need to understand your hidden meanings here.

As far as reception, this will be interesting. Do you mean those who are aware of systems theory? Or do you mean ALL of the general scientific community including those who never heard of systemics? Hmmm, do you write that most scientists do not study or work with quantum physics? Anyway, I don't know about the general community, but I do know what our critics have written.

We even have a paper on the subject mentioned in our encyclopedia.

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

You're tough Larry, but you have integrity, at least in the end. It's going to be tough for me but it can be done. It's just that I am very slow. But in the end I always come through. Thank (insert favorite word here) for that. Thomas Mandel 22:56, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, the article is not in any sort of special draft status. No, it is not our policy to develop most articles apart from the main namespace. Your article is in a sort of limbo, until you can fix the problems identified. (We might want to move it to something without the word "draft" in it to make this clear...) As to your questions about neutrality, I would send you to Neutrality Policy. --Larry Sanger 00:31, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

I read it. Agree one hundred percent. I, as a reader of an encyclopedia am not interested in what the encyclopedia thinks of the subject I am reading about. I am reading the encyclopedia so that I can read all the facts, and from that I will make up my own mind. For instance the DNA article here was the first time I saw all that basic information together in one place. It took years for me to piece it together book by book. Too bad I think that there is nothing about how it was discovered bit by bit.

I have a name from past experiences for what you call biased writing. Wikitalk. It isn't hard to notice when the writer is interjecting his opinion. A biased writer needs to put the bias into the article. There are ways to circumvent this, delete the evidence and then claim there is no evidence. It works for them.

I do not have the sense that systems theory is controversial in the conventional sense. I don't know of any paper asserting that systems theory is wrong. The criticism I have read seems to be more along the lines "systems theory has failed to produce a general systems theory." Or that systems science has failed to unite the sciences. Or that we haven't done our job. Or that, in the case of the science of complexity, system sciences have not mastered nonlinear systems, but they have. And since they will often borrow our core principles obviously they are not suggesting we were wrong. Obviously I will have to research this.

Am I allowed to go back to writing the article?

Thomas Mandel 02:12, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Sure, you can go back to writing the article. The neutrality issue here is not a matter of "the writer...interjecting his opinion," but instead, the presentation of an entire worldview, as it were, uncritically, as if it had been proven to everyone's satisfaction. Obviously, it hasn't been. It is possible to write a neutral article, that does not imply (controversially) that we actually think there is anything "to" systems theory, or that we think it is correct. --Larry Sanger 08:29, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Synchronicity

That fast, I got this letter, written to the listserv sponsored by a journal for the scientific study of consciousness, which is here the opinion of one scientist. I hope I am doing this right. This is just one opinion, granted, but it is a start. Thomas Mandel 23:22, 11 June 2007 (CDT)

Article space is not where that would go. Here is seems as good as any. Stephen Ewen 00:12, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Email

(Online Journal of Consciousness Studies)

[email protected] wrote:

It is not that science is somehow obsolete, but that classical science is incomplete. There is more than just what meets the eye. What is essential to note is that objects cannot be studied by isolation. Well, they can and are, but it has become clear that any object exists in a relationship with something else. And that in those instances when the object and something else emerge as a greater whole, this whole has properties which cannot be found in the constituent objects. Try and find the meaning of these words by a study of the blackness they are composed of...or the the codon of DNA by a study of the molecular structure of the constituent bases. A description of reality, like logic, occurs over a period of time, while reality itself happens all at once. We can talk about the particle properties of a photon, or we can talk about the wave properties of a photon, but we will not be able to talk about both of them at the same time. Yet the photon has no problem being both at the same time.

These difficulties are acknowledged in systems theory, and dealt with by changing the emphasis from the object to the interactionings of objects. This is a major simplification for the simple reason that relationships are of a few general types while objects can be infinite or nearly so. An object is defined by the observer, but take something as simple as a chair, and ask a lumberjack, woodsman, carpenter, painter, and the lady who is sitting is the chair what the chair is, and hardly any of them will say the same thing. Are they all confused?

A modern science of consciousness will first of all take into consideration all that involved. And rather than describe the individual components, what will be described is what those components are doing. And what they are doing, as well as what all other objects are doing, is working together. That is the first principle. It is up to science to describe how the components of consciousness work together. > > tom mandel

Hi Tom systems theory is an interesting and underappreciated theoretical framework; and, it is unique in making an explicit reference to the theorizer --- as a part of the system theorized about.

the unit of analysis is the system, a structure of interacting components.

let's take an individual human as our unit of analysis

clearly, the human individual is a component of the larger community; and, when treated as such is considered a totality. if I-0 am put on trial for killing someone who attacked me, I-0 would invoke my right to self-defense. this is a right that I-0 have irregardless of opinions concerning the internal structure of the human being.

on the other hand, there are times when the internal structure of a system is important. clearly, anytime one considers the relation between the phenomenological experiencer and its associated body one has already construed the person as a structure of interacting components. one is merely attempting to discovery the nature of the interaction.

consider a type of counseling, family counseling, that is based on general system theory. the internal structure of the person (the theoretical constructs of ego/id/superego) become irrelevant; but, the internal structure of the family of which that person is a component becomes relevant. in such a practice, it is the objective of the counselor to become a temporary part of the system for the purpose of altering it. therapeutic outcomes are usually described in terms of an alteration of its structure.

for purposes of consciousness research, the most interesting aspect of system theory (in my opinion) is that there is no a priori way to determine whether the gestalt view or the component view of the individual is appropriate for the case at hand.

consider the problem of deciding whether (and to what extent) the individual has a free will. I-2 certainly experience a sense of agency during what I-2 consider willing behavior; but, the consensus of opinion seems to be that the phenomenological experiencer is not the originator of such behavior.

do we analyze this situation by considering the person as a component of a larger system, the community at large, which determines the behavior of its members and/or supports (or interferes with) the individual's self-determination?

or do we analyze this situation by trying to discover which component of the human-as-gestalt is responsible for the behavior that I-2 experience as freely chosen and willed?

systems theory can contribute to this discussion in two ways. first, it makes the choice between these two perspectives a judgment call on the part of the theorizer. but, because one who theorizes about determined vs willed behavior is part of the populations whose members are being described, the theory is self-applicable.

if humans have a free will, then the fact that certain philosophers claim otherwise means that one may freely choose to believe otherwise.

on the other hand it human behavior is determined, then the fact that certain philosophers claim otherwise creates an intellectual class structure: determining influences (left over from the big bang, presumably) determine that certain people are compelled to hold the correct viewpoint on the free-will/determinism issue; and, that certain other people are compelled to hold an incorrect view.

Regards,

Joseph

-- http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Talk:Systems_theory&action=edit

Joseph Who? Stephen Ewen 00:15, 12 June 2007 (CDT)

Joseph Polanik. I'l let you know what he does when I get his reply to my query Thomas Mandel

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds of civility. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)

Request for article be renamed or moved

I would like to request that this article be remaned as "Systems theory (philosophy)" or "General systems theory" to distinguish it from the Systems theory as it is understood in the engineering and mathematical sciences. There are a few engineering articles that currently link to a "Systems theory" entry and I think priority to this title should be given to the engineering version of systems theory, which is a recognized and mainstream subject area, as noted. Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 07:02, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

From the International Encyclpedia of Systems and Cybernetics, "It should however be strongly emphasized that systems theory is not merely an unorganized collections of more or less systemic theories coming from specialized disciplines. Such theories (as for instance control theory) can usefuly contribute to systems theory as as a whole, but only if properly integrated in a global transdisciplinary perspective, i.e., correctly interconnected with each others." (Page 363)

Thomas Mandel 22:25, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

But, of course, engineers when writing about what they call "systems theory" would not want to make it a mere branch of General Systems Theory. This doesn't solve the problem. --Larry Sanger 22:33, 16 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, the encyclopedia says that, but why should this one book be accepted as an authority on the matter? I have nothing against (General) Systems Theory, except for the sole fact that it is an esoteric, speculative, all encompassing and far reaching theory which has yet to gain wide acceptance (of course, small groups of proponents will always be around) and is foreign to most people in all the branches of science which this theory attempts to unify. Until it does hit mainstream it would seem reasonable not to have articles in engineering link to it. Yet, since a more modest version of "systems theory" does exist in engineering there should be a separate entry for it somewhere. I hope you see my point. I think a disambiguation page would seem to be a reasonable resolution, with one link to Systems Theory (General) (or Systems Theory (Multidisciplinary)) and one on Systems Theory (engineering). Does that sound fair, Tom? Thanks. Hendra I. Nurdin 00:24, 17 September 2007 (CDT)