Correspondence with Scientists: Dr. Bruce Weber

Dr. Bruce Weber is an evolutionary biologist, a Robert H. Woodworth Chair in Science and Natural Philosophy Emeritus at Bennington College, and Professor of Biochemistry Emeritus at California State University Fullerton. Dr. Weber co‐authored with me the essay, “How Deep and Broad are the Laws of Emergence” (2008), which I presented at The New England Complex Systems Institute annual conference. We co‐taught several classes at Bennington College, including ‘The Emergence of the Embodied Mind‘ and 'Complexity Studies.'

The following are excerpts from an email exchange that took place over several weeks in 2012, after years of conversations and email correspondence. I started the exchange by sending Bruce three questions. He responded to them all at once and I wove further questions into his responses to which he responded once again.

CONVERSATION ONE

SS: Dear Bruce, Why does embodiment matter to scientists and dancers? How does a holistic view of mind and body, diverting from Cartesian dualism, impact our experience and our ability to interact with others?

BW: Dear Susan,The idea of embodiment matters to anyone attempting to under‐ stand any sort of emergent phenomenon. Although we ultimately wish to understand the underlying principles of emergence we need to study specific examples with particular instantiations. For example, if we wish to understand some aspect of mind as it emerges from patterns of neuronal activity we need to understand not only the synaptic connections within and between parts of the brain and the rest of the body but we need to be able to consider the whole organism moving in an environment and interacting with that environment through perception and action. This is an Aristotelian rather than a Cartesian approach. Even if we could develop a self‐conscious com‐ puter it would be embodied very differently from a human and I suspect would be a mind that would seem “alien” to our experience.

SS: I completely agree that we need to look at specific examples. However, does that mean that there are no underlying principles of embodiment relating to emergent phenomena? Can we concur that embodiment includes a holistic understanding of mind and body, and that any sort of fragmented, compartmentalized or reductionist way of defining phenomena leaves out the necessity for entities to interact as a whole as well as interaction of the parts? Do you think that dancers, specifically, since they focus on embod‐ iment as experiential and felt, by tracking local and global patterns at the same time, can understand this holistic frame? Does it change our view of what linearity means? Even though we are subject to time going forward, patterns are not set up in the logical, sequential way we sometimes like to think, but by selection, refine‐ ment, and local, regional and global interactions intermingling until an emergent form is shaped. Of course, the nature of this complexity is very different and specific to each example or instantiation, as you bring up.

BW: I agree with you that dancers understand in a holistic way, however, I do not see that this changes our notions of linearity and nonlinearity but it does suggest that what dancers are doing is occurring at several different levels simultaneously, which may or may not be so in other instantiations. A mechanism for memory can take many forms. For example, nucleic acids provide the main form of memory in living systems not only in terms of passing on information about metabolism but also its unfolding over time (development). Mutations that provide a selective advantage are retained in higher frequency and thus provide a memory of what has worked in the past in past environments; if the environment is relatively stable over at least the short run then those mutations will be passed along and possibly become the major form. Long‐ term memory could be encoded in the DNA; for example, by use of comparative sequences of hemoglobin, along with assuming that the neutral mutations act as a molecular clock, it would be possible to deduce a set of sequences that reflect what hemoglobin looked like at some time in the past; if we synthesized that hemoglobin we could determine its affinity for oxygen and thus have information about the partial pressure of oxygen at earlier times on earth mil‐ lions of years ago. I believe that your concern about fundamental principles of emergence is given in my response to your second question.

SS: This brings up first what we mean by “memory” in this context. Normally, I think of memory as related to consciousness of some kind. Even if it is muscle memory related to primary consciousness, not higher order consciousness, it is still based on an experiential model of pleasure and pain, or moving towards food or away from predators. But how does DNA have memory? Is repetition a kind of memory, or just a structural pattern that replicates itself? I agree that this does not change notions of linearity or non‐linearity, but how do you understand dancers relating to “several different levels simultaneously?” I agree that this is what happens, but I don’t know how to explain it. It is not exactly what we now call “multi‐tasking,” which I think assumes an accumulation of tasks happening all at once. As an improviser, I have the experience of focusing on many different things at once, but not as an accumulation of things, but as parts of a whole that need to operate simultaneously: tracking my neighbor, my small group around me and the global pattern in the room, my own movements, how they are forming a pattern with others, the developmental arc of where we are going, my own choices of selecting, or changing course with other material, the sensation of finding form, how long it will last, and when it will dissolve into a transition to another form.

BW: Memory is a persistence of information/structure/process over time. DNA certainly does this over the lifetime of an individual organism as well as over the duration of a lineage over evolutionary time. We think of memory as related to consciousness because this is how we experience it as conscious humans, but the phenomenon is more general than that. The memory of a computer that is encoded in binary patterns is not conscious but it is memory nonetheless and is somewhat similar to the memory of DNA. The difference is that the memories in DNA are the result of the inter‐ play of self‐organization, stochastic processes and selection whereas the memory in a computer has been programmed by human intelligence. I can imagine the day when computers could become autonomous agents and program themselves, of course then I would presume they would exhibit some sort of emergent self‐consciousness. With regard to your experience (which is similar to what I experienced during my participating in the experiential exercises in the studio for our class) they are occurring simul‐ taneously at different levels in the conscious mind of the dancer and the way these interact and lead to emergent structures is undoubtedly nonlinear.

CONVERSATION TWO

SS: Do scientists and dancers share an understanding of emer‐ gence? Are there structuring principles that cross disciplines? Do entities that are capable of self‐organization all find points of criticality where they emerge into a complex system?

BW: Emergence entails the appearance at a higher hierarchical level of new patterns of organized structure and/or phenomena. The history of the cosmos reflects a series of emergences: space/time/matter from the void; stars/galaxies/elements/planets as the Big Bang cooled; living systems from matter/energy; mind from body; culture from mind. Our intuition is that whatever the level and physical instantiation there are basic principles of emer‐ gence (which we are still working to understand) that allow novel structures to appear and sometimes to stabilize so as to persist over time and even evolve. There seems to be the need of some type of gradient, matter/ energy/information, constraints on inter‐ action (nonlinear ones seem particularly potent), criticality, self‐organizational interactions, followed by interactions that stabilize the new structure/phenomenon; and to persist long term there needs to be some mechanism for memory. When all these elements are present, there is a ratchet that allows the structure(s) to persist over long periods of time and to have the opportunity to evolve. Often, if not always, it seems that the new structure/‐ phenomenon is more efficient at reducing the causal gradient and increasing entropy production, though it is still a controversial issue as to whether entropy production is a sine qua non of emergence. Not all complex systems will necessarily find their criticality nor even those that do achieve emergent structure will have them persist, depending upon the stability of the causal factors and the relative magnitude of the various parameters and the resilience of the system to perturbations. The stability of the environment is a key factor in such considerations too. We also have to remember that newly emergent entities affect their environment and can change it in crucial ways. For example, the algae that first developed oxygen‐producing photosynthesis changed the earth’s environ‐ ment from a reducing atmosphere to one that is oxygen rich and oxidizing and which is lethal to obligate anaerobes, which have had to retreat to special environments that are oxygen depleted.

SS: In some ways, this answers my first question, because it does appear that there are some overriding principles that as you say, “we are still working to understand,” but that under the right conditions produce novel structures. I really appreciate your list of factors. I think that they are very well articulated and clear. I’d like to ask you more about your idea of a mechanism for memory. Dr. Edelman talks about memory as “the remembered present,” some‐ thing that is reconstructed or remapped each time from previous embodied mappings. Isn’t memory implicit if there is selection? What are things selecting for, if not some sort of instantiated, embedded structure that is being refined? Doesn’t memory suggest that we are in time, and that everything has a past? That some pattern or shape is carried forward, even if it is blown apart, there are innate qualities and constraints on phenomena which is what physics teaches us? Is it possible that anything is actually brand new? It appears new, because the complexity is something we have not seen before, and because there are so many possible combinations, there is always something complex that we have not experienced.

BW: The “remembered present” is something else than genetic memory in the sense that the organism associates certain environ‐ mental cues with a past event but it is not a memory of the event per se. Yes, we are embedded in time and things do have a past but new things do appear over time emerging out of the structures and processes of the past/present and this is what a theory of emer‐ gence would be about. For example, the transition from prebiotic chemistry to the emergence of the first living things was like a phase transition and genuinely new phenomena came into the world with living systems and changed the world.

SS: Okay, this relates to the previous question, and now I under‐ stand better what you mean by genetic memory, although I find it extremely interesting that you bring up environmental cues with a past event, because this could mean that the embodied and embedded qualities of DNA signal cues that move it to replicate in time, which for me, parallels structuring principles of memory on many levels. I completely agree with the importance of analyzing specific entities in particular environments, and the instantiation totally determines the detail and specificity of understanding exactly what is going on, however, the more that I have a dialogue with you and Stuart, the more convinced I am that there are structuring principles in nature that are fundamental to creativity and growth in living things. I met a scientist in Stuart’s Crazy Salon at the University of Vermont this past fall who is convinced there is no difference between living and non‐living things, only the complexity of their make‐up. This concept really made me have a headache.

BW: I think we are “on the same page” here. I also would agree that there are fundamental structuring principles in nature that generate creativity in nature (and ultimately in human culture) but although living things are fully natural I do think that there are phenomena that emerge with living systems (or with the human mind) that are not seen in nonliving systems however complex. This is not vitalism, but just reflects how emergence works.

CONVERSATION THREE

SS: When you observed the dancers in the studio, and tried some of the improvisational exercises, what was your experi‐ ence? What makes our laboratories different? Why did we feel that we could enter a dialogue?

BW: In the dance studio, the component participants are embedded in a system, similar to say molecules in a solution, but the partici‐ pants can observe their own actions, those of others, and be aware of any emerging aesthetic structures. There is no reason to assume that molecules share this degree of self‐awareness. However, the dance studio allows an easily observable “laboratory” in which to observe the role of rules and constraints and their changes on the types of structures that emerge. With no constraint there was chaos. With some constraint there were incipient patterns that emerged. With too much constraint there was structure but no change or development. But with the right amount of constraint there was a critical point at which interesting and aesthetically pleasing structures emerged and developed over time. The dancers are in a system but can observe their motions, those of the other dancers, as well as emerging and evolving large‐scale structures. The degree of visual communication as well as self‐consciousness and consciousness of others is not the same as the collection of molecules in a Benard cell or a BZ reaction, also the numbers involved [in the dance studio] are very, very much smaller and hence subject to the properties of systems of small numbers. But in the future, as quantum computers are developed that involve small numbers of entangled photons or electrons, the analogy may become more apt. In any event, the dialogue between scientists and dancers is possible because we share an intuition that there are some general principles of emergence that obtain even when the physical embodiment and instantiation is different or very different. The interaction also adds a dimension to the discourse within and between the communities.

SS: Bruce, this is so exciting, to hear a scientist describe this work so well. Your observations resonate exactly with my experience in the studio. This conversation, to me, brings up the idea of “agency.” Stuart Kauffman talks to me a lot about this idea. Because he believes the universe is inherently “creative,” he questions where agency begins. Does a cell have a certain type of agency? Clearly, not the kind humans have, but it raises some important questions of where agency begins and how much free will exists. I agree that the key difference is that humans can discuss verbally their experience while they are in the midst of a self‐organizing process, whereas scientists are observing the phenomenon and drawing conclusions from their interaction with the observation.

BW: I agree with Stuart that the universe is inherently creative and that agency is ubiquitous but takes different forms. Certainly a cell has agency, even a Benard structure has agency of a sort, but of course not the sort of agency that say mammals or humans have. There is a series of emergences with regard to agency too.

SS: Good, this exchange clarifies my understanding of agency. Here is another question. When you talk about emergence, I get the impression that of the many definitions being used these days, there are two meanings that I am sorting out. The first is when you use “emergence” to describe a sequence of developments, such as from prebiotic chemistry to the first living things, or as you just described, the emergence of agency. The second meaning is the phenomenon of emergence in a complex system regarding “the point of criticality” when the system takes shape out of a phase transition. The first meaning, for me, relates to an evolutionary process, or the idea that systems are getting more complex over time. The second seems to be an explanation for phenomena that are happening as part of organic structuring, or in the nature of living things. Maybe the difference is just in scale, how much time, and how many repetitions occur, before BIG emergences occur that shift entire patterns, whereas on a short time scale, the repeti‐ tions seem more similar with small variations. Certainly, dance improvisers are more familiar with emergent patterns that appear and dissolve, many times over. I’m beginning to recognize it now in other systems related to my conflict resolution work. I’m in conversations now with Chris Koliba, who is Director of the Graduate Program in Public Administration at UVM (Stuart intro‐ duced us). He is steeped in Complex Systems Dynamics, and I’m beginning to see how “emergent structuring” may be enabled with certain constraints in collaborative problem‐solving processes.

BW: I agree with you that there are two senses of emergence being used and that these differ because of the differences in time scales, but I also think that there are similar underlying fundamental prin‐ ciples involved. I think it is most interesting to be thinking about a range of phenomena, such as the emergence of structure in Benard cells or the BZ reaction, emergence of living systems from nonliving ones, the emergence of mind from brain/body, the emergence of structures and beauty in improvisation, the emergence of novelty in culture and economics, the emergence of justice in conflict resolution, and so forth. As I said before, we are still in the process of developing a general theory of emergence and we need to consider all these examples and levels to seek clues as to the general theory if it proves possible to develop such a theory. Please keep me up to date with your writings but also I will be interested in how your collaborations at UVM develop.

Best wishes in all your endeavors, Bruce