Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘science’ Category

Margaret Wheatley works in the area of leadership and organisational change from the perspective of what we can learn from living reality. She has the complex adaptive systems concept at the core of her work. I recently stumbled across her writings, particularly her four “principles of living systems”. Here they are –

  1. Participation is not a choice
  2. Life always reacts to directives, it never obeys them
  3. We do not see “reality”. We each create our own interpretation of what is real
  4. To create better health in a living system, connect it more to itself

The first principle relates to the reality that everyone, every thing, every aspect of our world, our universe, exists inextricably embedded in the contexts of its existence. A living organism is an “open system”, with information and energy constantly flowing into and out of it. A living system is dynamic and perpetually changing and “co-evolving” with the other elements of the ecosystem in which it lives. You can’t change a part of a person without producing changes in the rest of that person, and you can’t change a person without setting off a cascade of unpredictable changes in the world in which that person lives (and vice versa – you can’t change something in someone’s world without setting off changes in that person). Participation is not a choice, it’s an inevitability.

The second principle is the core of adaptation. Every individual is unique and cannot be controlled like a robot or a machine. You can force people to behave a certain way for a period of time, but ultimately all the organisations and political systems based on force collapse. You can’t force the sun to shine, the wind to blow, the rain to fall, or Life to obey your commands.

The third principle is something we often forget. Iain McGilchrist, in The Master and His Emissary, highlights how the left cerebral hemisphere is particularly well developed to “re-create” reality. It creates “re-presentations” of the raw information and energy which flows into the person. These representations allow us to make sense of the world and to literally to grasp things better. It’s a fantastic development and is probably at the core of our industrial and technological development as a species. We also know now that the part of the brain just behind the forehead, the mid-prefrontal cortex, has many, many functions, but amongst them is a map-making facility. It’s crucially involved in creating, what Dan Siegel calls, “a me map, a you map and a we map”. We never know any of this reality directly. Rather we constantly create our perceptions and our understandings, influencing those creations with our memories, our hopes, our beliefs, our values and our desires.

The final principle is Margaret Wheatley’s way of talking about integration. When a system is well integrated there are healthy, mutually beneficial relationships between all the connected parts. That produces coherence and harmony. It’s the basis of health.

When I first created this blog, I wrote a permanent page on “ACE” – “Adaptation, Creativity and Engagement“. It was really interesting for me, therefore, to discover this quote from Margaret Wheatley (which I believe, essentially highlights the same characteristics)

Over many years of work all over the world, I’ve learned that if we organize in the same way that the rest of life does, we develop the skills we need: we become resilient, adaptive, aware, and creative. We enjoy working together. And life’s processes work everywhere, no matter the culture, group, or person, because these are basic dynamics shared by all living beings

 

Read Full Post »

There is a big difference between what is complicated and what is complex.
A machine can be very complicated. As cars have become ever more sophisticated they have become more complicated. It’s not easy to see what’s wrong when your car breaks down, unless you have learned how it works.
Machines are made up of different parts, and there may be hundreds or thousands of parts in a machine but we can still learn exactly how it works and how to fix it by learning bit by bit just how each part works and how it affects any other part.
People on the other hand are complex. We also are made up of many many parts, billions and billions of cells, each of which is an agent acting on many other cells, and each of which, in turn is acted upon by many other cells. In fact, through the multiplicity of interactive connections which exist, it becomes impossible to deal with any single part in isolation, or, indeed, to be able to accurately predict the over all effects of any single change. It’s parts don’t necessarily function the same way in isolation as they do when under the influence of their multiple connections.
This structure makes the organism a complex one, not a complicated one.
Here is the key difference –
A complicated structure can be understood by understanding its individual parts.
A complex one can only be understood as a whole.

Read Full Post »

This week I sat next to a student on the train. She was revising her notes on “clinical research”. I was struck by her list of keypoints under the heading “the scientific method”

  • Observation
  • Description
  • Explanation
  • Prediction
  • Control

I have a life long interest in science, but for me, science is just one form of enquiry. I’m actually an insatiably curious person. I love learning. I’m constantly reading. I read on the train, I read in cafes, at home, at work, everywhere. Having a kindle reader on my iphone and my ipad has made it even easier to weave reading into my day. I have thousands of books in my own library. I have google searches set up, rss feeds delivered to my MrReader app, Flipboard and Zite apps on my ipad…..I’m a reader!

But I’m also a photographer and a writer, as you can see if you browse through this blog. And I’m a thinker. I love to learn, to reflect, to understand. I love that every work day I get to spend time with people and try to understand them.

I observe, I describe and I explain.

But predict? I’m not so keen on that one. I find life so complex and every human being so unique, that I find it impossible to predict the future. In broad brush terms, or in generalisations, or statistical probabilities I can have a bash, but I know that for this person, right here, right now, I can’t predict how things will go.

And control?

Control?

No thank you. Way too much compliance and control going on in our society for my liking and it doesn’t seem to be improving much. I’m a lot more keen on values than I am on control.

Is science about control? I thought it was about discovery and wonder. I thought it was about learning with every new insight that we have more to learn.

I was very impressed the first time I read Deleuze and Guattari who described three ways of thinking

Art – which is thinking about percepts and affects

Philosophy – thinking about concepts

Science – thinking about function

I like that. Science for me is about discovering patterns, and getting some insights into how something works. That’s what I loved about my undergraduate medical degree – discovering the anatomy, physiology, biology of how the body works. It’s been years and years of daily medical practice, of reading, of reflecting and of thinking, which has brought me to my present place of understanding how a person works. And I sure haven’t got all THAT figured out!

There’s something that jars with me about science directed towards control. But maybe that’s because I don’t like to be controlled!

 

Read Full Post »

Sometimes (quite often actually), I wake up with a word or phrase in my head. This morning it was “heart of the universe”. The particular word or phrase can set off all kinds of different thoughts and where this one quickly went was “It’s 2013. It’s 40 years since I dissected a human heart. Second year, Medical School, Edinburgh University. That year we learned Anatomy and Physiology. I was amazed at the structure of the heart. It’s four chambers, the valves, the specialised heart muscle cells which each had their own rhythm, the conduction pathways from the “AV node” which carried the co-ordinating electrical beat to produce the two, opposite states of the heart – systole and asystole.

It was two years later before they told us to put on white coats, buy a good quality stethoscope, and led us on ward rounds, to stand collectively around patients’ beds, and one by one, place our shiny new stethoscopes on their chests to listen for the “lub dub” of the “normal” heart, and listen carefully for the clicks and sounds which filled the silences and revealed the disorders of the valves.

Over the years as a GP, I prescribed the drugs to slow hearts down, to regulate disordered rhythms, and to improve the blood supply to get the oxygen to the cells starved by blocked arteries and causing angina. I also found people presenting with pain, flutters and skipped beats of the heart whose investigation results showed no obvious pathologies. What were we to do with them? And where was the explanation for their symptoms? If their symptoms weren’t signposts to pathology, then what were they?

Gradually, I became aware of how we use heart in our language, as people told me about “broken hearts”, “heart ache”, “longings of the heart”, “an emptiness in my heart”, “getting to the heart of the problem”, “filling my heart with joy”. Of course, from early years I became familiar with the shape of a heart as we would draw it to communicate love. We see that shape everywhere.

three leaves

cafe love

tree

wishes

Why the heart? Why not the liver, or the pancreas, or the spleen? Why not the kidneys?

I knew there were intimate connections between the brain and the heart, mainly channeled through the “autonomic nervous system”. Then only in the last few years did I learn we’ve discovered that there is a neural network around the heart and associated with that is the production of neuropeptides (the small proteins which act on the brain) within the heart and its neural network. So, the links are more intimate than I realised, and, most importantly, more two way than I realised – the brain acts on the heart, but the heart also acts on the brain. In fact, it seems we do some of our mental processing using these neurones around the heart. (That dismissive phrase which I never liked – “it’s all in your head” – turns out to be even more stupid than I always thought it was)

And as time passed, and I experienced encounters with more patients, I began to see that sometimes (not always but often enough to always consider), there were direct links between “heart issues”, “heart language” and “heart symptoms”, irrespective of the presence or absence of pathologies.

So, here’s something to consider as you think ahead into 2013. How about building your “heart intelligence”? That’s a concept that means somewhat different things to different people, but let’s just use it as it is, without detailed definition.

Try the Heartmath technique. Sit quietly, focus on your heart area, take three deep, slow heart breaths, then recreate for yourself a heart feeling (you can find the details here). In this state of “coherence”, ask your heart a question, and wait to see what answer appears. Write it down.

What does your heart tell you about 2013?

Read Full Post »

Global brain

Howard Bloom’s “Global Brain” [ISBN 0471419192] is a great and stimulating read. He describes “complex adaptive systems” as having five characteristics –

Diversity generators, conformity enforcers, inner judges, resource shifters and intergroup tournaments.

These are an interesting five characteristics to highlight (there are, of course, other characteristics of “complex adaptive systems”) and Bloom takes his time to describe in gripping and convincing detail how each of these characteristics has contributed to the evolution of life on this planet.

You could read this book as a critique of orthodox Darwinism – the selfish gene, individualised kind of Darwinism – with a very convincing case being made for group selection as a key part of the engine of evolution. He really does make a good clear case for group as opposed to individualised “survival of the fittest” evolution.

I especially like his first two characteristics – diversity generators and conformity enforcers.

All human beings create a sense of self out of the need to be an individual, to be unique, to be different, and the need to belong, to share, to connect and to fit in with others. Diversity generation creates difference, whilst conformity enforcement creates connections and rules.

Diversity generators and conformity enforcers also remind me of Thomas Berry’s lovely idea of wildness and discipline

However…….I ended up not satisfied with the relentlessly competitive theme. His other three characteristics all contribute to a series of survival of the fittest battles. I think there is truth in this but think for a moment about the human body. Our heart and our liver don’t fight each other for resources with the winner taking all. Something else happens – mutually beneficial relationships are established.

Mutually beneficial relationships are the key characteristic of integration, and integration strikes me as a key way in which Life evolves. Through increasing amounts of mutually beneficial connections, complex adaptive systems become both more complex and more adaptive.

It’s not all about competition.

Read Full Post »

The other day there I came across a reference to an Alan Watts teaching about the limitations of reductionism. I’ve tracked it down –

You cannot understand life and its mysteries as long as you try to grasp it.  Indeed, you cannot grasp it just as you cannot walk off with a river in a bucket.  If you try to capture running water in a bucket, it is clear that you do not understand it and that you will always be disappointed, for in the bucket the water does not run.  To “have” running water you must let go of it and let it run. ~Alan Watts from “The Wisdom of Insecurity”.

Read Full Post »

The New England Journal of Medicine reports this week that GSK has just been fined $3 billion, and that since 2009, drug companies have been fined $11 billion! Wow! Colossal sums, huh? However, it turns out these figures represent only about 10% of annual profits and should probably be considered as just the “cost of doing business” ie these fines won’t change behaviour.

Should we be worried about these crimes and misdemeanors? You bet. However, as Ben Goldacre points out in a Guardian published extract from his upcoming book, “Bad Pharma”, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Of more concern is routine distortion of the evidence base which is manipulated in a variety of ways by those who pay the piper – the drug companies. Read the Guardian article, then answer the following two questions…..

How confident are you that the drug companies act in your best interests?

How confident are you that “evidence based medicine” is based on objective, relevant scientific evidence?

 

Read Full Post »

We are in a transition time to a more ecological way of understanding our place in the universe. Here’s a short video where Thomas Berry explains why we are at the junction of era change

Read Full Post »

What’s the difference between a complex system and a complicated one?

It’s all in the number of connections.

A complicated mechanism is just that – a mechanism. Like a machine. It may be built up from lots of different components and parts (think of modern cars with their onboard computer systems), but each part interacts with very few other parts. So if you want to understand it you can take it to pieces and understand each part, then build it back up if you know how each part connects to other parts.

A complex system is not like a machine. It may also have many different components and parts (think of a brain with all its neurones) but each part has multiple connections with other parts, and each part can in turn be influenced by multiple other parts. You cannot understand this by taking it to pieces. Its characteristics are dependant on the whole interactive system. A single part, or even set of parts, will not necessarily behave the same way when considered in the entirety of the whole organ.

All life forms are complex systems, not complicated systems. Treating human beings as machines is a failure of understanding.

Read Full Post »

Iain McGilchrist has released a short Kindle book entitled The Divided Brain and The Search for Meaning [ASIN:B008JE7I2M]. In it he presents an excellent precis of the ideas and findings he presents so brilliantly in his somewhat massive The Emperor and His Emissary.

The key to his thesis is that it is odd that our brains are divided into two asymmetric halves. Why is that? Why didn’t we just develop a single, unified cortex? There’s probably some big advantage in having two brains, but only if the two halves let us do different things. This is NOT an argument that the left does this and the right does that. It is NOT a claim that left-brained people deal with facts, and right-brained people are artistic. He dismisses such ideas as simplistic and erroneous. As he puts it –

Instead of asking, as of a machine, what it does – does it ‘do’ reason, emotion, language, imagery? – we should have asked – as of a person – what’s he or she like?

In other words, what are the different ways each hemisphere approaches the world?

He says that the right hemisphere primarily lets us be aware of the world, and looks for the connections, or the “between-ness” everywhere, whereas the left allows us to grasp, and, hence, manipulate the world.

The right hemisphere underwrites sustained attention and vigilance for whatever may be, without preconception. Its attention is not in the service of manipulation, but in the service of connection, exploration and relation…….One way of looking at the difference would be to say that while the left hemisphere’s raison d’être is to narrow things down to a certainty, the right hemisphere’s is to open them up into possibility.

These differences are profound and we need them both. the one helps us to pin things down, and the other opens us up to seeing change and possibilities.

Another way of thinking of the difference between the hemispheres is to see the left hemisphere’s world as tending towards fixity, whereas that of the right tends towards flow.

In his thesis, he claims that the left hemisphere way of engaging with the world has become unhealthily dominant and we’ve become stuck on its way of representing reality to us.

the purpose of the left hemisphere is to allow us to manipulate the world, not to understand it.

I highly recommend you get this book. You can easily read it through at a single sitting, then you’ll want to go right back to the start and read it again. If you haven’t read The Master and His Emissary, The Divided Brain will whet your appetite but it will also let you easily understand the basic premise.

The right hemisphere seems to be involved more with new experience, new events, things, ideas, words, skills or music, or whatever it may be, while they are still fresh, original and unique, and so to speak present, to the mind.

The left hemisphere abstracts and generalises, where the right hemisphere’s world remains truer to each embodied instance, and appreciates the unique.

Just stop and think for a moment what that means, and why we should want to re-balance our society by shifting the balance to the right hemispheric way of approaching the world…..

 

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »