Systems thinking and neurological positivism: Further elucidations and implications (original) (raw)
Related papers
Systems thinking and a proposal for a neurological positivism
Systems Research, 1988
Key wordsPositivism ; computational neurobiology ; collective-decision circuits ; neural Darwinism ; projective mechanisms ; systems thinking; general system theory ; consciousness : mind-brain relationships ; homology : homological transformations ; neurological positivism.
Neural Fabrics of the Mind: Systems Neuroscience, Systems Psychology and Consciousness
Annals of Psychiatry and Mental Health, 2015
Mind operates on the fabrics of signaling of systems biology of astrocyte-neuron mosaic. Conversion of signal to information and its handling by operations of mind is not a solo affair. Operations of mind are interlinked with operations of self, 'life' and consciousness. Could all these be brought within the ambit of systems science? When the automated cell signaling system in systems biology fails to operate at the desirable level of perfection, how self is called upon for application of mind to take a conscious decision on the remedial measures is the issue at hand. What we see as mental disorders, have deep roots in cell signaling and in failure of handling of information by operations of mind, self and 'life'. The purpose of this review is to take lead from the renaissance in emerging knowledge in glia-neuron relationship for developing the molecular foundation of a systems neuroscience, which is inclusive of cognition and consciousness and excludes nothing from the behavior. A nested three-tier systems has been constructed where, in the first tier/nest there is systems biology of glia and neuron that form functional mosaic in the context of their origin, survival, migration, trophism, metabolic shuttles, ion homeostasis and circuit development. In the second tier/nest there is systems biophysics and informatics, which includes electrical signaling, communication and information partnership between astrocytes and neurons. The knowledge on operations within the third tier/nest is still at the formative stage. However, this leads us from the domain of information to those of mind, self, 'life' and consciousness. This specific way of looking at the systems brain in one hand brings useful insights in pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative and neuropsychiatric disorders and on the other hand could be utilitarian for its translational potential in systems engineering for developing a conscious ware from the present level of software.
Physics of Life Reviews, 2010
We would like to thank all the commentators who responded to our target review paper [1] for their thought-provoking ideas and for their initially positive characterization of our theorizing. Our position provoked a broad range of reactions, from enthusiastic support [2-4] to some kind of opposition . Regardless of the type of the response, one common factor appears to be the plausibility of a presented attempt to apply insights from physics, biology (neuroscience), and phenomenology of mind to form a unified theoretical framework of Operational Architectonics of brain-mind functioning.
Complex Systems, Brain, and Consciousness (Reading Group Syllabus)
An a priori definition of complexity cannot be given, nor is it viable to propose one for the reason that every complex system differs in character and organization. Thus, the only possible course of action in understanding complex systems is by observing the characteristics those systems exhibit. However, some features have been deemed necessary (although not sufficient) for regarding a system complex as opposite to complicated or merely simple systems. A working definition of this sort describes a complex system as a composite organization of many interdependent parts that are displaying rich array of nonlinear interactions and/or adaptive relations that result in complex ('emergent') collective behavior. In this sense, it is important to distinguish complex from complicated systems since complicated systems can and often do have many components and perform highly sophisticated operations. For example, the Large Hadron Collider is a complicated system; we can deconstruct it to its constituent parts and account for their function within a system. By doing so we are able to predict the systems behavior. On the other hand, a flock of birds is a complex system. Given the part's properties, i.e. single bird, one cannot fully account for the properties of the whole, i.e. the flock, making those systems more than just the sum of their parts. Complexity talk has become fashionable over the recent decade or so. Its applications are numerous. One of them is in the Cognitive Neuroscience research project. This is mostly done through the framework of complex dynamical systems which presents a radical shift of methodology. However, there are two problems emerging from this and, thus, two main aims of this reading group. Firstly, the very concept of 'complexity' is complex. Can we talk about complexity as an umbrella term or are there only specific cases of complexity? Similarly, should this, and in what way, change the application of the theory itself to the particular systems? In addition, complex systems theory uses opaque concepts such as emergence that are heavily burden philosophically. Hence, the first order of business is to understand complex systems and, subsequently, examine them from a philosophical perspective. On the other hand, theories like Integrated Information Theory (IIT) have recently emerged in this framework. These theories aim to account for phenomenology and capture the notion of consciousness. However, the main issue remains the same throughout the theories: the very application to " higher order " cognitive processes is questionable, since complex dynamical systems don't necessarily account for 'how things work' or 'why things happen'. Hence, our second aim is to examine some of these theories more closely.
Determinism and Indeterminism: From Neuroscience to Philosophy
If the discussion about a determinist or an indeterminist nature already becomes acute at the level of physics and even more intense if it concerns the question of life and the evolution of its forms, the debate reveals its greatest importance when it refers to consciousness and the freedom of the human being. With the enormous development of the neurosciences, it seemed all the more tempting, and likely, to reduce consciousness to neurobiological phenomena. The increase in the degree of complexity that such a reduction would require set off new epistemological and ontological discussions, which continue in one way or other those of the philosophy of mind [1]. In this field, independently of how we understand the behavior of nature to be, whether deterministic or indeterministic, the common enemy was and still is every form of dualism, be it substance dualism or property dualism. The problems dualism has to find an acceptable explanation both to the nature of the mind and of mental acts, provoked a variety of answers.
The Philosophy of Neuroscience
Over the past three decades, philosophy of science has grown increasingly "local." Concerns have switched from general features of scientific practice to concepts, issues, and puzzles specific to particular disciplines. Philosophy of neuroscience is a natural result. This emerging area was also spurred by remarkable recent growth in the neurosciences. Cognitive and computational neuroscience continues to encroach upon issues traditionally addressed within the humanities, including the nature of consciousness, action, knowledge, and normativity. Empirical discoveries about brain structure and function suggest ways that "naturalistic" programs might develop in detail, beyond the abstract philosophical considerations in their favor. The literature distinguishes "philosophy of neuroscience" and "neurophilosophy." The former concerns foundational issues within the neurosciences. The latter concerns application of neuroscientific concepts to traditional philosophical questions. Exploring various concepts of representation employed in neuroscientific theories is an example of the former. Examining implications of neurological syndromes for the concept of a unified self is an example of the latter. In this entry, we will assume this distinction and discuss examples of both.
1995
Recently, a new approach to modeling cognitive phenomena has been gaining recognition: the dynamical systems approach. Proponents of this theory claim to have identified a new paradigm for the study of cognition which is superior to both symbolicism and connectionism.
CONSCIOUSNESS TRANSFORMATION: FROM ANALYTICAL TO SYSTEMS THINKING
Analytical thinking has been a dominant mode in science for centuries. Nowadays, the majority of society still fall into the trap of analytical thinking, which is short-term thinking without feedback information and knowing the deeper meaning of a challenge. Consequently, people remain unsatisfied, sad and generally in lower emotional conditions. Systems thinking appeared in the 1950s, when systems philosophers and engineers started to think from the perspective of a whole and used this approach, firstly in the industrial area. Systems thinking searches for industrial solutions, but it also is an essential part of the conscious transformation of analytical thinking. It represents human awareness of the situation as a whole, and it causes a shift of consciousness, in which long-term solutions are of greater importance than short-term ones. This paper will present the process of the growth systems thinking awareness, which represents the shift of consciousness, its benefits and its deficits.