| Related sites for http://www.enformy.com/tesintro.htm |
| Fibonacci_and_Lucas_Numbers Electrical equivalence of discrete lumped cascaded T sections with the infinitesimal transmission line of distributed elements and with the Fibonacci and Lucas Numbers of 2n. | | Computational_Chemistry_Jobs A free job listing service for computational chemistry professionals and employers. Also an area for positions wanted and for upcoming conferences. | | Conservation_of_endangered_animals_by_using_sperm_and_embryo_freezing A project to preserve several endangered mammals of far northern Europe, using cryopreservation. At the University of Kuopio, Finland. | | EMS_Directory_of_Individual_Members Searchable directory of individual members of the European Mathematical Society who have permitted the publication of their data. | | Syntan_-_a_calculator_of_math_functions_for_Windows_ A calculator of math functions based on syntax analysis with living graph. Free download. | | Vision_2020__Sustainable_Food_Conference International Food Policy Research Institute meeting on agriculture, economic, health (AIDS), and Social Policies. September 2001. | | Hydromulching_and_Hydroseeding_Definition Description of hydromulching and hydroseeding as a turf establishment process. | | University_of_Waterloo Sociology (Waterloo, ON) | | The_European_Molecular_Biology_Organization Meetings, fellowships, publications, society news and information | | Innovatech_Labs,_Inc_ Independent laboratory specializing in electron spectroscopy, and offering chromatography and detection methods, for chemical analysis for manufacturing, quality control, failure tests, and research a | | D\'Andrea,_Cathy Brief profile of this Simon Fraser University professor. Research interests include early agrarian societies of northern Africa and the Far East. | | Markku_Savela\'s_Lepidoptera Taxonomic tree including common and scientific names, publication details, references, links, general range maps, and some images. | | Norwegian_Ministry_of_Fisheries About Norway's fishing industry, whales, seals and seal-hunting, sustainable fisheries utilization, and other topics. | | Commutative_Hypercomplex_Special_Relativity Einstein's special relativity is formulated in terms of 4-D commutative hypercomplex mathematics. The traditional results are obtained, but some additional effects are suggested. | | National_Pollution_Funds_Center NPFC is the fiduciary agent for the U.S. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and the portion of Superfund accessible to the U.S. Coast Guard. Site has information on vessel certification, spill financial | | Moulds_in_the_Home__Cladosporium_cladosporioides Article on this species which can cause unsightly patches on damp walls in houses. | | Vernon_L__Smith,_Professor_of_Economics_and_Law Curriculum vitae, including degrees, research interests, recent publications, and contact information, with a more detailed version available in pdf format. | | Swift_Fox__Vulpes_velox A description of the endangered Swift Fox, its disappearance and reintroduction in Canada. | | MassXpert Free software suite designed for mass spectrometric data simulations and analyses on any sequence of any polymer chemistry type. Includes online manual and links to platform specific downloads. | | Lingula Information from Invertebrate Anatomy OnLine on this lophophorate and its classification, with a detailed account of its external and internal anatomy. |
|
Introduction to the Theory of Enformed Systems
Introduction
to the Theory of Enformed Systems
A
Tutorial on Reductionism vs. Holism
Don
Watson & Berney Williams
We introduce
the Theory of Enformed Systems (TES) with three statements that relate it to
the paradigms of what Thomas Kuhn termed "normal science."
1. TES is
radically related to the prevailing scientific worldviews because it's a theory
of organization per se--the root of all organized systems.
2. TES can't be understood
in terms of other paradigms because it's not derived from them.
3. TES is not only
deep, it is broad. It's a transdisciplinary conceptual model that explains
the basic behaviors and properties of all of the systems studied in physics,
chemistry, biology, psychology, parapsychology, sociology, and their subdisciplines.
If you doubt the validity
of this extraordinary claim, please read on to see our reasons for making it.
We note first that
science is a human endeavor--a human invention that's operated by humans within
human social institutions. This is so obvious, it goes without saying. And
here we encounter a serious problem in normal science--not saying it. If we
don't address the humanness of science, we can't recognize the emotional and
cognitive processes that resist scientific revolutions. Nor can we appreciate
how our motives, impeded by our limitations, foster our clinging to misleading
mythologies.
For instance, our motive
to understand the natural world exposes our limitations in comprehending the
whole of Nature. Our realizing these limits, in turn, induces us to create
myths that help us believe we can transcend our limitations. Relying on these
myths, we believe we can capture and understand Nature.
The case in point is
the method of reductionism, the most pervasive myth of normal science. As
a basic dogma of the scientific subcultures, reductionism isn't taught, questioned,
or analyzed. It's tacitly accepted as a necessary path to understanding. Following
this road, we've not only reduced Nature into smaller and smaller parts, we've
reduced science itself to narrower and narrower academic specialties. The
worldview of these disjointed disciplines is limited to highly constricted
horizons that prevent even seeing into other disciplines, much less the whole
of Nature.
In short, normal science
is a box of closed boxes. The problem is, to solve the puzzles of Nature,
we need to see them from outside all of these boxes.
Reductive specialization
invites perilous consequences. Just as specialization
precedes extinction in the natural selection of species, it foreshadows irrelevance
in science. The irrelevance of normal science to living systems can be appreciated
by reducing reductionism itself to absurdity.
According to the mythology
of science, we will eventually understand living systems if we divide them
into increasingly simpler parts--organs, cells, molecules, and finally the
fundamental particles and forces studied in physics. This is absurd because
neutrons, protons, and electrons, the rudimentary parts of, say, possums,
are also the rudimentary parts of every other material system. They don't
entail possumness.
The only justification
for reductionism is the tacit assumption that it is reversible. To see the
fallacy of "reversible reductionism," consider this Possum Principle:
Two half-possums do not equal one whole possum.
The possum principle
applies to reductionism because dividing a possum into two parts irreversibly
annihilates the essential quality of the whole possum: its organization, i.e.,
the "map" of the relationships among its parts in space and time.
This annihilation is
accompanied by two pivotal losses: The possum loses its life, of course, and
scientists lose the opportunity to study the map of its organization. In other
words, after reducing it, the ostensible object of study no longer exists,
either in reality (the living possum) or in concept (the possum's map).
Despite the absurdity
of applying nonexistent concepts to nonexistent possums, the lore of science
promises that, if we believe strongly enough, and if we work hard and long
enough, we'll eventually find our reward in watching the possum reintegrate
itself from the "building blocks" to which we've reduced it. Today, this futile
hope is often expressed as "self-organization"--a chimerical bootstrap operation
that would somehow occur without boots or straps.
Because the limits
of the reductionist method aren't explored in normal science, most scientists
believe they are studying possums, when they are actually studying possum
parts. We are not saying that the study of possum parts is not, in itself,
useful. We are saying that understanding possum parts does not entail understanding
the possum. This is a result of what Antonio Damasio termed the "binding problem."
The binding problem
is ultimately unsolvable because it's an artefact of the reductionist method.
That is, applying reductionism necessitates the binding problem. Since this
problem can't be solved, it must be avoided. To do this, we must reject reductionism
and address wholes as wholes.
Addressing wholes as
such is the idealized approach of systems science, as envisioned by Ludwig
von Bertalanffy. Indeed, the possum principle is expressed as a basic tenet
of systems science, which characterizes a whole as more than the sum of its
parts.
This characterization,
though valid, is not a practical guide for doing science for two reasons:
(a) it does not specify the difference between a whole and the sum of its
parts--namely, the map of organization; and (b) it capitulates to reductionism
by focusing on "parts." Thus, systems science is compelled to rely on "integration"
to bind parts together to reconstruct wholes. Without a conceptual model of
the possum-map, however, integration reconstructs, not possums, but the binding
problem.
On the other hand,
if we begin with a model of the map, integration isn't necessary. Since the
map itself is a whole, the collection of parts it interrelates also constitutes
a whole. This leads to a far richer characterization of a whole system: A
whole comprises parts PLUS a map that specifies the relationships among these
parts in space and time.
Is there a conceptual
model of this map? There is. TES is the general theory of this map. TES applies
the notion that electrons, atoms, molecules, and living organisms share two
critical characteristics: (a) All of them are, in Koestler's terminology,
"holons"--whole systems, or gestalts, that can't be divided and retain
their original characteristics; and (b) these holons can be organized into
more complex holons in hierarchical arrangements--"holarchies." The key concept
here is "organization."
TES is able to explain
the order inherent in holons and holarchies because it is a theory of organization
per se. That such a theory is radical to the prevailing paradigms is
emphasized by the deep level of abstraction of organization itself.
Like other revolutionary
theories, TES originated in a single posited concept. Classical mechanics
rested on the concept of mass, and quantum mechanics was founded on the energy
posit. TES was derived from the posit of enformy--the fundamental,
conserved capacity to organize.
In light of these ideas,
we can now revisit the possum principle. What does "two half-possums" mean?
Under the paradigms of normal science, the phrase denotes the result of dividing
a possum into two equal parts. But under TES, it is meaningless. There's no
such thing as a half-possum, because a possum is an indivisible, all-or-nothing
gestalt.
In the terminology
of TES, a gestalt is an "enformed system." That is, a gestalt maps to a four-dimensional,
nonmaterial (i.e., "spiritual"), organizing field that is created and sustained
by enformy. This field is acronymed "SELF" from Singular, Enformed, Living
Field. The SELF contains the map of organization for enformed systems at all
ontological levels.
A possum, then, is
a material system whose constituent gestalts--e.g., atoms, molecules, cells,
organs--are mapped, first to their own SELFs, then to the possum's SELF. Note
that possumness resides in the SELF.
In contrast, a possum
carcass is not a gestalt, but a collection of simpler gestalts. That's why
these rudimentary parts don't entail possumness.
Under TES, the basic
properties and behaviors of the SELF account for the theory's parsimony. For
instance, one of the SELF's fundamental behaviors is cohering in space-time.
Since its extension in space-time removes the constraints of three dimensions
from the SELF, its behaviors are nonlocal and atemporal. As a result, predicted
SELF-related phenomena include quantum entanglement, telepathy, precognition,
and the homing behaviors of pigeons and other animals.
SELFs not only pre-exist
the material systems mapped to them, they post-exist them. That is, the SELF
survives death of the body. Yet under TES, survival doesn't always occur at
the SELF's highest ontological level. Sub-SELFs might be the only gestalts
to survive the death of an individual. As a result, TES predicts three types
of "reincarnation:" (a) complete, as in certain religious beliefs; (b) partial,
as in psychometry and "cellular memory;" and (c) melded, which accounts for
the evolution of new species.
Because it characterizes
the SELF, TES is a theory of the origin, maintenance, and evolution of organization
per se. TES is the only such paradigm extant. For comparison, Rupert Sheldrake's
theory of morphogenesis describes the maintenance of morphic fields, but not
their origin or evolution.
Since TES addresses
wholes as such, we think it occupies a foundational position in science, for
instance: (a) TES is the "general systems theory" anticipated by Bertalanffy;
(b) it is the foundation of what Willis Harman termed "wholeness science;"
(c) it is the foundation of the science of spirit; and (d) it forms the conceptual
base for understanding all human motives, limitations, and mythologies--including
science.
In short, that's why
we can make the extraordinary claim that TES is a transdisciplinary model
that underpins all the scientific disciplines.
Of course, we could
be wrong. Yet, because TES is the simplest, most parsimonious theory of gestalts
available, we think it possesses, at a minimum, profound heuristic value.
Hoping we've evoked your serious thinking, we invite your comments, critiques,
and questions.
We realize this is
little more than a teaser. You can learn more in a new tutorial on enformed
and non-enformed systems, which is organized around the question, "Are
Living, Conscious Robots Possible?" To learn details of enformy and
TES, you can read the contributions linked from the Enformy
Page. Or, to actually enjoy learning about enformy and enformy-based
technologies, you can read The Last Miracle.
|
|
