When “measuring” nature we choose a temporal and a spatial scale that is convenient to make a valid observation. The choice of the observation scale is an important step in science. In physics there is a somehow well-defined dividing line among different research areas based on the characteristic lengths of the systems studied and on the characteristic time of the phenomena under investigation. For instance, microphysics (e.g., molecular physics, atomic physics, nuclear physics and particle physics) refers to areas of physics that study phenomena that take place at the microscopic scale (lengths <1mm). Similarly, in biology we can distinguish from molecular biology, microbiology and cell biology looking at length scales below tenths of micrometers. Major levels of biological organization are regulated at scales of many orders of magnitude in space and time (see Figure 1), with space spanning from the molecular scale (10-10 m) to the living organism scale (1 m), and time from nanoseconds (10-9 s) to years (108 s). In biology, while we can intuitively assert if a determined process involves cells, molecules, or organs, it is not so simple to identify values for the lengths at which we switch from one level to the next [41].
Single-level models
Roughly speaking, a systemic way, multi-scale model is a composition of two or more “single” scale models representing the same phenomenon (or its parts) at different levels of descriptions. Even if the models we want to combine share the level of description, the manner in which the components are put together, namely how the variables should be linked together, is a challenging part. For example, a simple model that describes the HIV infection of T helper lymphocytes may also take into acco...
... middle of paper ...
...that one generally attempts hypothetical scenarios by modifying those initial conditions to get a feeling of the systems behavior [29][39]. This process leads itself in discovering new knowledge. However, the problem is that the real system is in general not isolated hence a local description is not sufficient to disclose crucial mechanisms. It comes quite clear that one of the reasons why biological phenomena are intrinsically complex is because they are influenced by variables that are outside a single level of space/temporal description. Moreover the collective behaviour cannot be simply inferred from the behaviour of its elements and the alteration of only one element or one interaction reverberates on the whole system. Finally a global organization emerges from the interacting elements (emergent behaviour), which does not exist at the individual elements level.
Stackman, R. W., Henderson, L. S., & Bloch, D. P. (2006). Emergence and community: The story of three complex adaptive entities. Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8(3), 78-91.
It is clear throughout the “Double Helix” that there are a set of well-defined norms that underlie the actions of the researchers in the labs discussed by Watson. These norms are consistent throughout Watson’s tale and shape much of the narrative, they include: competitiveness between labs, a vast network of interdisciplinary shared information that Merton would refer to as communism, and a rigid hierarchy that determines to some extent whose work is deemed credible. These norms affected each of the players in Watson’s book to different degrees, and both helped and hindered the advancement of discovery.
ABSTRACT: Most versions of the knowledge argument say that if a scientist observing my brain does not know what my consciousness 'is like,' then consciousness is not identical with physical brain processes. This unwarrantedly equates 'physical' with 'empirically observable.' However, we can conclude only that consciousness is not identical with anything empirically observable. Still, given the intimate connection between each conscious event (C) and a corresponding empirically observable physiological event (P), what P-C relation could render C empirically unobservable? Some suggest that C is a relation among Ps which is distinguishable because it is multi-realizable; that is, C could have been realized by P2 rather than P1 and still have been the same relation. C might even be a 'self-organizing' process, appropriating and replacing its own material substrata. How can this account explain the empirical unobservability of consciousness? Because the emotions motivating attention direction, partly constitutive of phenomenal states, are executed, not undergone, by organisms. Organisms-self-organizing processes actively appropriating their needed physical substrata-feel motivations by generating them. Thus, experiencing someone's consciousness entails executing his or her motivations.
The rather new topic of Sociobiology has an impact of many disciplines beyond the realm of Psychology and Science. It seems as thought a Sociobiologist could explain any event in life by putting an evolutionary skew on it. Although I don’t agree with many of the main ideas within sociobiology it attempts to explain why groups of animals behave the way they do, and I do believe that is important.
From the anatomy of a human, the social life of insects, and the way the world functions are all interconnected through complex system science. By taking fractal geometry and implementing it into larger unmanageable scales can help provide further more in depth information pertaining to not just that individual but also the system as a whole.
The structures constitutive of a particular type of environment (e.g. the material conditions of existence characteristic of a class condition) produce habitus, systems of durable, transposable dispositions, structured structures predisposed to function as structuring structures, that is, as principles of the generation and structuring of practices and representations which can be objectively “regulated” and “regular” without in any way being the product of obedience to rules, objectively adapted to their goals without presupposing a conscious aiming at ends or an express mastery of the operations necessary to attain them and, being all this, collectively orchestrated without being the product of the orchestrating action of a conductor. (Bourdeiu 72)
looks at how the mechanisms of fundamental cause are created, specifically as they relate to the
”Theories tell how and why things work; how and why one variable is related to another. Research findings that are theory based can be place in a framework that advances science further than findings that are unconnected to formal theory.” (O'Connell, 2009, p. 33).
To conclude, organisms will shape the meaning of things and actions that occur within its umwelts according the use it is giving to the thing in that particular umwelt. These are personal because even within the same communities and environments umwelts will be completely different among the subjects because each one is performing a different project.
Time as well as chance events are expressive of another set of determinants, another level of causality in the wider plane of life. The critical gap between human action and its results depends on the response of the environing life and expresses the character of life in the given circumstances.
In this ordered domain, the relationships between cause and effect exist but separated in time and space and not fully understood. Complicated context contains multiple answers. Rese...
Models are thought to be used effectively in natural sciences to visually display concepts and information as illustrations, graphs, and diagrams. In natural sciences when we come up with a theory, to investigate the validity of a theory we create models and designs which are tested out in an experiment. This experiment is based of of models and designs which can be recreated to give same results and explain the experiment and theory in relation to the model. However, in some cases models can help to little avail.
When discussing the interactions within different systems which were discussed in Chapter 1 of the text, you a left with complex yet systematic avenues to which an individual’s development can be affected. In order to fully understand the interactions of individuals on a day to day basic, it is imparative that we first understand that people and everything around them are in constant change. Rather those changes are internal or external, we must be able to identify these systems, which intel will help us with the understanding of human development.
A brief explanation has been explained through the end of this topic. Besides that, we also investigated theories connected to our topic whether these theories fit or not to our findings.
Ludwig von Bertalanffy, a biologist, was the first to formulate the principles of the general theory of systems (French & Bell, 1999). According to his definition a system is a ‘set of elements standing in interaction’ or ‘a complex of interacting elements’ (BCSSS, 2014). Webster defines a system as a ‘regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole,’ which ‘is in, or tends to be in, equilibrium’ (Bernard, 1990). The literature provides various definitions of ‘system’, however, overall the concept of system indicates interdependence, interconnectedness and interrelation between its parts within a whole (French & Bell, 1999).