Showing posts with label complex systems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label complex systems. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 08, 2014

Papers from the Santa Fe Institute's 2014 Complex Systems Summer School

collaboration network of the 2014 CSSS projects - Created by Alberto Antonioni

The Santa Fe Institute has posted the papers from their 2014 Complex Systems Summer School - and they have made the first batch of them (more to come) available online as a free PDF downloads. Links for contacting the authors are available at the SFI site (here).

Now posted: Papers from SFI's 2014 Complex Systems Summer School

Oct. 8, 2014 


Proceedings from the 2014 Complex Systems Summer School are now posted, complete with a network map of the students’ collaborations. The students welcome comments and feedback.

Included in the proceedings are an exemplary set of more than two dozen papers -- more than half of which are being considered for publication.

Some of the topics: Can simple models reproduce complex transportation networks? What are the non-linear effects of pesticides on food dynamics? What role do fractals and scaling play in finance models?

Pursue these and other compelling questions by visiting the CSSS proceedings on the alumni page of SFI's website.

Proceedings:


Alberto Antonioni, Luis A. Martinez-Vaquero, Nicholas Mathis, Leto Peel, and Massimo Stella - Contact Authors- 


Brais Alvarez, Matthew Ayres, Alireza Goudarzi, Francesca Lipari, and Vipin P. Veetil - 
Brais Alvarez, Alireza Goudarzi, Leonhard Horstmeyer, Francesca Lipari - Contact Authors-
Brais Alvarez-Pereira, Matthew Ayres, Ana María Gomez Lopez, Shai Gorsky, Sean Hayes, Zhi Qiao, Jessica Santana - Contact Authors- 
Cecilia S. Andreazzi Alberto Antonioni, Alireza Goudarzi, Sanja Selakovic, and Massimo Stella - Contact Authors- 
Elizabeth Lusczek, Nhat Nguyen, Sanja Selakovic, Brian Thompson - Non-Linear Effects of Pesticides on Food Web Dynamics -  Contact Authors- Coming soon

Fahad Khalid, Emília Garcia-Casademont, Sarah Laborde, Claire Lagesse, Elizabeth Lusczek - Contact Authors- 
Flavia M. D. Marquitti, Degang Wu, Luis A. M. Vaquero, Massimo Stella, Alberto Antonioni, Claudius Graebner, and Blaž Krese - Contact Authors-

In Publication Process: Links will appear upon publication 


Alberto Antonioni, Alex Brummer, Morgan Edwards, Bernardo Alves Furtado, James Holdener, Michael Kalyuzhny, Claire Lagesse, Diana LaScala-Gruenewald, Yu Liu, Rohan Mehta - Can simple models reproduce complex transportation networks: Human cities and ant colonies -  Contact Authors

Blaž Krese, Sarah Marzen, Cornelia Metzig, Zhi Qiao, Vipin P. Veetil - Fractals and Scaling in Finance: a comparison of two models -  Contact Authors

Brais Alvarez-Pereira, Catherine Bale, Bernardo Alves Furtado, James E. Gentile , Claudius Graebner, Heath Henderson, and Francesca Lipari - Social Institutions and Economic Inequality Modeling the onset of the Kuznets Curve -  Contact Authors

Claire Lagesse and Alireza Goudarzi - Structural Robustness in Road Networks -  Contact Authors

Cole Mathis, Yu Liu, José Aguilar-Rodríguez, Stojan Davidovic, Rohan Mehta, Emília Garcia-Casademont, Zhi Qiao, Ali Kharrazi, Renske Vroomans, Sean M. Gibbons -The tradeoff between division of labor and robustness in complex, adaptive systems is shaped by environmental stability -  Contact Authors

Cornelia Metzig, Diego R. Barneche, Michael Kalyuzhny - Toward a joint unified framework to understanding biodiversity -  Contact Authors

Ellsworth M. Campbell, Morgan R. Edwards, Jennifer K. Hellmann, Lin Li, Nicolas K. Scholtes - Financial stability through self-quarantine vs. system regulation in the interbank market -  Contact Authors

Emilia Garcia-Casademont, Shai Gorsky, Claudius Gräbner, Sarah Laborde, Luis Martinez-Vaquero - Three approaches to model one complex social-ecological system: Conceptual and methodological insights from studying the proliferation of fishing techniques in the Logone Floodplain in Cameroon -  Contact Authors

Fahad Khalid, Diana LaScala-Gruenewald, Ana María Gomez Lopez,  Renske Vroomans, Stojan Davidovic,  Zhi Qiao - Is Evolution a Software Engineer? A Case-based Comparative Analysis of Biological and Software Systems -  Contact Authors

Hiroshi Ashikaga, Jose Aguilar-Rodriguez, Shai Gorsky, Elizabeth Lusczek, Flavia Maria Darcie Marquitti, Brian Thompson, Degang Wu, Joshua Garland - Information Theory of the Heart - Contact Authors

Jennifer Hellmann, Leonhard Horstmeyer, Lin Li, Anna Olson, and Stefan Pfenninger - Network Analysis of Interdisciplinary Research in the Physical Sciences -  Contact Authors

Jose Aguilar-Rodrıguez, Leto Peel, Massimo Stella - The topology of an empirical genotype-phenotype map: Genotype networks of transcription factor binding sites -  Contact Authors

Junjian Qi, Stefan Pfenninger, Ali Kharrazi, Cecilia S. Andreazzi - Controlling the Self-organizing Dynamics in Sandpile Models by Failure Tolerance and Applications to Economic and Ecological Systems -  Contact Authors

Bios of the CSSS 2014 Participants can be found here

Saturday, June 07, 2014

Large-Scale Structure in Networks (Santa Fe Institute)


An interesting talk from the Santa Fe Institute on how understanding large-scale networks (the speaker, Mark Newman, works primarily with social networks) can help us understand complex systems.

What the large scale structure of networks can tell us about many kinds of complex systems

June 5, 2014 | Santa Fe Institute


Networks are useful as compact mathematical representations of all sorts of systems. SFI External Professor Mark Newman asks what the large-scale mathematical structures of networks can tell us.

Mathematical measures of network properties such as degree (a measure of average connectivity) and transitivity (a measure of second-order connectivity) are simple, often-used ways of understanding network structure at a local level.

Newman is interested in larger-scale structures of networks with thousands or millions of nodes. He reviews statistical techniques that offer such large-scale insights, as well as potential predictive capabilities.

His presentation took place during SFI's 2014 Science Board Symposium in Santa Fe.

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Paul Fusella - Dynamic Systems Theory in Cognitive Science: Major Elements, Applications, and Debates Surrounding a Revolutionary Meta-Theory


Last week I posted an article that summarized some of the progress in dynamic systems theory and cognitive science over the last 20 years. This article takes up that same topic but examines some of the theoretical debates around the use and validity of dynamic systems theory (a good overview of DNS can be found here).

I am only posting the "Introduction" below, so follow the links to read the whole article (pdf).

Full Citation:
Fusella, PV. (2013). Dynamic Systems Theory in Cognitive Science: Major Elements, Applications, and Debates Surrounding a Revolutionary Meta-Theory. Dynamical Psychology. dynapsyc.org

Dynamic Systems Theory in Cognitive Science: Major Elements, Applications, and Debates Surrounding a Revolutionary Meta-Theory


Paul V. Fusella
January 15, 2013

Introduction


“It is the theory that decides what we can observe.” -Albert Einstein

Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) is a broad theoretical framework imported from the physical sciences and used in psychology and cognitive science in the past several decades that provides an alternative to the computational and information-processing approach that has governed main stream cognitive science since the dawn of the cognitive revolution in the mid-twentieth century (Beer, 2000; van Gelder & Port, 1995; van Gelder, 1998; Spivey, 2007). DST views all psychological processes and capacities as dynamic systems which are best described as complex, non-linear, self-organizing and emergent and whereby cognition develops over the life course and occurs over real-time as a probable description of many possible alternatives instead of linear-assembly-of-symbolic-processes (Spivey, 2007; van Gelder & Port, 1995). Psychological capacities are viewed as emerging as more complex unique forms from prior simpler states, moving from chaotic to more stable trajectories in a theoretical state-space that culminate in the manifestation of a specific thought in real-time or a developmental phenomenon over ontogenesis (Spivey, 2006, Thelen & Smith, 1994; van Geert, 1998). There is a sensitivity to initial conditions and a determination by multiple causality, whereby psychological phenomena, be it a developmental capacity or cognition more generally, are softly-assembled (Thelen & Smith, 2003).

This overarching and revolutionary view for cognitive science has been in the works for quite some time perhaps since the cybernetics movement in the mid-20th century but has become more popular in recent years and has been referred to by a number of different and related labels reflecting related ideas and ranging from chaos theory to complexity theory to nonlinear dynamical systems theory. These titles all refer to similar ideas but have subtle and nuanced differences. I choose to use the term dynamic systems theory because this is the term used by most cognitive scientists who subscribe to this viewpoint and who refer to their movement as the dynamical view in cognitive science and refer to themselves as dynamicists so I will continue with that tradition although the lexicon and conceptual hallmarks used are shared by all these related viewpoints.

Specifically, what I mean by the DST approach in cognitive science (and later to what I refer to as the Complexity Theory (CT) approach) is something also related to work in theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence and empirical and theoretical work done there that applies to some distinct intelligent systems but particularly what it can say about the human mind as an intelligent system. Siegelmann (1997, 2003), Bringsford (2004), Kempis (1991), and Penrose (1990) have described the quintessential hallmark of the DST approach of this particular form of intelligent system as being trans-Turing (or super-Turing) and which possesses hyper-computational capabilities; that is brains and other certain forms of intelligent systems perform processes that go above and beyond the Turing-limit with it’s symbolic-serial processing of the traditional digital computer metaphor that has hallmarked much of the work done in cognitive science and which has been motivated by the information-processing (or computational) perspective. By computationalism I am referring to what has been the dominate theoretical framework in cognitive science since its inception, which has been motivated by the development of the digital computer and principally the work of Alan Turing and the Turing machine, and which uses as a metaphor for the mind, a symbolic-algorithmic-serial-processing digital-computer that computes at or below the Turing-limit.

The argument made by most dynamicists is that DST is a more suitable theoretical framework for situating psychological phenomena because it has achieved success in accounting for other phenomena in the natural world as diverse as meteorological phenomena to kinematics of the human body. The brain and mind are part of the natural world so logically they too can be accounted for by the dynamical view and perhaps more completely and accurately than the traditional computational and information-processing approach with its use of the digital computer as the metaphor for mind. The mind is an abstraction for the neurological underpinnings in the brain and these are not machines they are biological organs made up of cells and organic molecules and they are part of the natural world and could arguably be better accounted for by a meta-theory that has been successful in capturing the diverse natural phenomena that dynamic systems theory has been able to do. I am echoing the argument made by the dynamicists and arguing for a paradigm shift in the sense that Kuhn (1962) described, specifically in cognitive science, as a move away-from the computational, toward a dynamical theoretical framework and paradigm with an recognition that the computations made by the human mind are trans-Turing (or super-Turing) and go above and beyond the Turing-limit of the traditional information-processing approach.

Adopting DST reconciles a lot of the debates in cognitive science surrounding the phenomena that is investigated from monism vs. dualism, nativism vs. empiricism, and subjectivity vs. objectivity, not to mention the various anomalies discovered as a result of adopting a computational viewpoint. DST reorganizes the way that phenomena are studied and conceptualized; where some such as Varela, Thompson, and Rosch (1991) have argued for first person methods in the study of consciousness utilizing methods from traditional Buddhist psychology and which reflects a post-positivist view of how science is conducted. However, others including Spivey (2007), Beer (2000), Thelen and Smith (1994), van Gelder and Port (1995), and Schoner (2008) continue to work empirically with a positivist empirical framework in studying various psychological capacities from a DST perspective and these are the mainstream in the field. Thus, be it the manner in which phenomena are empirically investigated or the manner in which theories are constructed, DST is beginning to be accepted as a viable alternative to the 20th century traditions of computationalism and positivism. DST provides an account of cognitive phenomena that is dynamical, embodied, completely situated and ecologically-grounded and the ways that cognitive scientists go about conducting research and theory building is likely to be influenced by these fundamental aspects to this meta-theory.

In this paper, I will set out to provide an overview of the dynamical approach in cognitive science reviewing the more important work that has been done in recent decades and especially at the turn of the 21rst century. I will focus on a review of two recent debates that were published recently: one in 1998 in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences and the other in 2012 in TopiCS in Cognitive Science where contributing scientists debate the legitimacy of the dynamical view. During the review of these debates I will touch on the different facets of DST including work done in embodied cognition and ecologically grounded cognitive phenomena and also work that has been done in applying DST to experiments in psycholinguistics wherein the role of the body, the context, and the environment are united in one framework that is guided by DST.

During this review of the work in the application of DST in cognitive science and reviewing the various formal debates that showed up in peer reviewed journals and discussing them critically, I will echo what others have proclaimed in the past and make the argument that DST is ultimately a more suitable theoretical framework for guiding empirical research and theory building in cognitive science and should at some point in the not so distant future, but especially for moving the field forward in this new century, replace the outdated computational and information-processing approach which appears to have run its course. DST has much promise in providing an overarching and unifying theoretical framework for the cognitive sciences but like anything new it is met with staunch criticisms and rejection. However, the more people that join this movement the more the basic principles embodied in the DST approach will become grounded in empirical evidence. I will begin to conclude the review with a recap of the major controversies that adopting DST provokes from its criticizers and will finish with my modest vision for the future role DST can play in reorganizing the way that science is conducted in the cognitive sciences building off the work that has been done in dynamical cognition from the beginning and reacting against and incorporating within it the good that came from the traditional approaches in cognitive science into the future of what this revolutionary meta-theory means for cognitive science.
Read the whole article (pdf).

Monday, February 24, 2014

Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (12 Parts)

slidetest1

It's my favorite time of year - the annual Zen Brain Conference at Upaya Zen Center, hosted as always by Roshi Joan Halifax. Among the regular attendees who were there again this year were Richard Davidson, Evan Thompson, Al Kaszniak, and John Dunne.

This year's topic was Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation.
In this intensive program, we explore our lived experience of awareness in relation to our living bodies and brains seen as complex adaptive systems. We focus especially on the themes of “embodied cognition,” “emergent processes,” and “enaction” (cognition as embodied action). Neuroscientists, philosophers, Buddhist scholars, and Zen teachers explore these themes through presentations and discussion interspersed with periods of meditation practice throughout each day.
This is the kind of stuff I get excited about - so I look forward to listening to all of these.

01-30-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 1)

By on February 13, 2014

Speakers: Richard Davidson & Evan Thompson & John Dunne & Neil Theise & Rebecca Todd & Al Kaszniak & Roshi Joan Halifax



Recorded: Thursday Jan 30, 2014

Play

Series Description: Increasingly, cognitive science presents us with a vision of mind as grounded in the complex transformative processes of life, while neuroscience presents us with a vision of the brain as a complex adaptive system that constantly reshapes itself in response to context, experience, and practice. How can this vision of complexity and transformation enrich our understanding of consciousness—the felt experience of awareness across waking, dreaming, sleeping, and dying? In this intensive program, we explore our lived experience of awareness in relation to our living bodies and brains seen as complex adaptive systems. We focus especially on the themes of “embodied cognition,” “emergent processes,” and “enaction” (cognition as embodied action). Neuroscientists, philosophers, Buddhist scholars, and Zen teachers explore these themes through presentations and discussion interspersed with periods of meditation practice throughout each day.
Episode Description: Al Kaszniak kicks off this opening session of Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation by stating that this program is intended to “push the boundaries” of knowledge and will touch upon “new thinking” in relating complex systems theory to areas of inquiry such as neuroscience, cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and contemplative practice. The Zen Brain faculty then briefly introduce themselves before handing the floor over to Neil Theise. Neil presents a wide-ranging introduction to consciousness and complex systems theory that draws upon ideas in physics, biology, and spirituality. After presenting the basics of complex systems theory, Neil unfolds some very novel thinking on how the emergence of the universe can be viewed in terms of three overlapping processes: complementarity, recursion, and sentience.

BIOs:


Richard Davidson received his Ph.D. in Personality, Psychopathology, and Psychophysiology from Harvard University. He is currently Director for the Laboratory of Affective Neuroscience as well as the Waisman Laboratory for Brain Imaging and Behavior, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research is focused on cortical and subcortical substrates of emotion and affective disorders, including depression and anxiety, using quantitative electrophysiology, positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging to make inferences about patterns of regional brain function. A major focus of his current work is on interactions between prefrontal cortex and the amygdala in the regulation of emotion in both normal subjects and patients with affective and anxiety disorders. He has also studied and published several papers on brain physiology in long-term Buddhist meditators, and in persons receiving short-term training in mindfulness meditation. Among his several books is Visions of compassion: Western Scientists and Tibetan Buddhists Examine Human Nature (2002, Oxford University Press), co-edited with Anne Harrington.
Evan Thompson is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto. He received his B.A. from Amherst College in Asian Studies, and his Ph.D. in Philosophy from the University of Toronto. He is the author of Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind (Harvard University Press, 2007), and the co-editor (with P. Zelazo and M. Moscovitch) of The Cambridge Handbook of Consciousness (Cambridge University Press, 2007) He is also the co-author with F.J. Varela and E. Rosch of The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience (MIT Press, 1991) and the author of Color Vision: A Study in Cognitive Science and the Philosophy of Perception (Routledge Press, 1995). He is currently working on a new book, titled Waking, Dreaming, Being: New Revelations about the Self from Neuroscience and Meditation. Thompson held a Canada Research Chair at York University (2002-2005), and has also taught at Boston University. He has held visiting positions at the Centre de Récherch en Epistémologie Appliqué (CREA) at the Ecole Polytechnique in Paris and at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
John Dunne is an associate professor in the Department of Religion at Emory University, where he is Co-Director of the Encyclopedia of Contemplative Practices and the Emory Collaborative for Contemplative Studies. He was educated at the Amherst College and Harvard University, where he received his Ph.D. from the Committee on the Study of Religion in 1999. Before joining Emory’s faculty in 2005, he taught at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and held a research position at the University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Support from the American Institute of Indian Studies sustained two years of his doctoral research at the Central Institute for Higher Tibetan Studies in Sarnath, India. 

His work focuses on various aspects of Buddhist philosophy and contemplative practice. In Foundations of Dharmakirti’s Philosophy (2004), he examines the most prominent Buddhist theories of perception, language, inference and justification. His current research includes an inquiry into the notion of “mindfulness” in both classical Buddhist and contemporary contexts, and he is also engaged in a study of Candrakirti’s “Prasannapada”, a major Buddhist philosophical work on the metaphysics of “emptiness” and “selflessness.” His recently published work includes an essay on neuroscience and meditation co-authored with Richard J. Davidson and Antoine Lutz. He frequently serves as a translator for Tibetan scholars, and as a consultant, he appears on the roster of several ongoing scientific studies of Buddhist contemplative practices.
Neil Theise is a diagnostic liver pathologist and adult stem cell researcher in New York City, where he is Professor of Pathology and of Medicine at the Beth Israel Medical Center of the Mount Sinai Health System. He is considered a pioneer of multi-organ adult stem cell plasticity and has published on that topic in Science, Nature, and Cell. Beginning with applications of complexity and emergent self-organization to stem cell behaviors, his work has expanded into include cross-cultural models of biology and medicine, quantum behaviors in biological systems (biological complementarity, uncertainty), and parallels between contemplative insights into reality and contemporary scientific understandings. Most recently, his efforts have focused on the nature of consciousness and the role of sentience to the development and organization of the universe. His teaching efforts regarding all these themes (text and video, for lay and academic audiences) can be found on his blog, neiltheise.wordpress.com. Additional writings can be found at his website at neiltheise.com.
Rebecca Todd focused her doctoral work on mapping neural activation patterns underlying affective processing as well as cognition/emotion interactions associated with individual differences and normative development of self-regulation in childhood. Current research interests include investigating the effects of emotional arousal on the subjective experience of perceptual vividness and its link with memory vividness in healthy young adults and in post-traumatic stress disorder. She is also interested in the influence of emotional state on perceptual processing and higher-order cognitive processes, and the neural mechanisms underlying such influences.
Al Kaszniak received his Ph.D. in clinical and developmental psychology from the University of Illinois in 1976, and completed an internship in clinical neuropsychology at Rush Medical Center in Chicago. He is currently Director of the Arizona Alzheimer’s Consortium Education Core, and a professor in the departments of psychology, neurology, and psychiatry at The University of Arizona (UA. He formerly served as Head of the Psychology Department, and as Director of the UA Center for Consciousness Studies. Al also presently serves as Chief Academic Officer for the Mind and Life Institute, an organization that facilitates collaborative scientific research on contemplative practices and traditions. He is the co-author or editor of seven books, including the three-volume Toward a Science of Consciousness (MIT Press), and Emotions, Qualia, and Consciousness (World Scientific). His research, published in over 150 journal articles and scholarly book chapters, has been supported by grants from the U.S. National Institute on Aging, National Institute of Mental Health, and National Science Foundation, as well as several private foundations. His work has focused on the neuropsychology of Alzheimer’s disease and other age-related neurological disorders, consciousness, memory self-monitoring, emotion, and the psychophysiology of long-term and short-term meditation. Al has served on the editorial boards of several scientific journals, and has been an advisor to the National Institutes of Health and other governmental agencies. He is a Past-President of the Section on Clinical Geropsychology and fellow of the American Psychological Association and a fellow of the Association for Psychological Science. In addition to his academic and administrative roles, he is a lineage holder and teacher (Sensei) in the Soto tradition of Zen Buddhism.
Joan Halifax Roshi is a Buddhist teacher, Zen priest, anthropologist, and author. She is Founder, Abbot, and Head Teacher of Upaya Zen Center, a Buddhist monastery in Santa Fe, New Mexico. She received her Ph.D in medical anthropology in 1973. She has lectured on the subject of death and dying at many academic institutions, including Harvard Divinity School and Harvard Medical School, Georgetown Medical School, University of Virginia Medical School, Duke University Medical School, University of Connecticut Medical School, among many others. She received a National Science Foundation Fellowship in Visual Anthropology, and was an Honorary Research Fellow in Medical Ethnobotany at Harvard University. From 1972-1975, she worked with psychiatrist Stanislav Grof at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center on pioneering work with dying cancer patients, using LSD as an adjunct to psychotherapy. After the LSD project, she has continued to work with dying people and their families and to teach health care professionals as well as lay individuals on compassionate care of the dying. She is Director of the Project on Being with Dying and Founder and Director of the Upaya Prison Project that develops programs on meditation for prisoners. For the past twenty-five years, she has been active in environmental work. She studied for a decade with Zen Teacher Seung Sahn and was a teacher in the Kwan Um Zen School. She received the Lamp Transmission from Thich Nhat Hanh, and was given Inka by Roshi Bernie Glassman. A Founding Teacher of the Zen Peacemaker Order, her work and practice for more than three decades has focused on applied Buddhism. Her books include: The Human Encounter with Death (with Stanislav Grof); Shamanic Voices; Shaman: The Wounded Healer; The Fruitful Darkness; Simplicity in the Complex: A Buddhist Life in America; Being with Dying; and Wisdom Beyond Wisdom (with Kazuaki Tanashashi).

 
Here are links to the other 11 episodes.
 
01-31-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 2)


 
Episode Description: In this second session of Zen Brain, Evan Thompson follows on what Neil Theise introduced in the first session (Part 1 of this series), in a wide-ranging exploration of complexity and consciousness. Evan touches upon concepts such as autopoiesis, sense-making, the Buddhist idea of dependent co-arising, enaction, sentience, and the emergence of mind.
 
Podcast: Play in new window | Download


01-31-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 3)


Episode Description: Following Evan Thompson’s talk (Part 2 of this series), the Zen Brain faculty field questions from the program participants.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


01-31-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 4)


Episode Description: In this segment of Zen Brain, Rebecca Todd discusses the processes of affect-biased attention and affective enhancement of perception in relation to the complex adaptive system of the human brain. Affect-biased attention refers to how our emotional states bias what we pay attention to in the world before we are even exposed to a stimulus, while affective enhancement refers to how an emotionally-laden perception is made more vivid by our brain. Rebecca discusses these concepts in relation to genetics, epigenetics, and also offers some clinical implications of the data she shares.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


01-31-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 5)


Episode Description: Following Rebecca Todd’s talk (Part 4 of this series), the Zen Brain faculty field questions from the program participants.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


01-31-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 6)


Episode Description: After a full day of presentations, the Zen Brain faculty address questions submitted by the program participants.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


02-01-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 7)


Episode Description: In this segment of Zen Brain, which coincides conceptually with Neil Theise’s talk (Part 1 of this series), John Dunne presents an elegant overview of the evolution of several Buddhist philosophical systems. The goal of all Buddhist systems is the elimination of suffering, suffering which arises due to confusion about the nature of “something.” As we progress from early Buddhism, to the Sautrantika system, to Yogacara, then to Madhyamika, and finally to Mahamudra and Dzogchen, that “something” about which we are confused changes. Each system presents a slightly subtler “cause” for our confusion. Importantly, however, no single system can claim to have the best account of reality. No explanatory system is ultimately true. A system is “better” than another only insofar as it is better at eliminating suffering, at leading us to freedom.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


02-01-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 8)


Episode Description: Following John Dunne’s talk (Part 7 of this series), the Zen Brain faculty field questions from the program participants.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


02-01-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 9)

Episode Description: In this wide-ranging session of the program, Richie touches upon the topics of complexity and consciousness, gamma oscillations, synchrony, and consciousness, the consequences of unconsciousness, epigenetics, contemplative practice in children, and ends with a beautiful “call for humility” in the face of the extraordinary complexity of the human brain.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download


02-01-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 10)

Episode Description: After a full day of presentations, the Zen Brain faculty address questions submitted by the program participants.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


02-02-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 11)


Episode Description: On the final morning of the program, the Zen Brain faculty offer some concluding thoughts before the final Q&A.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download 


02-02-2014: Zen Brain: Consciousness, Complex Systems, and Transformation (Part 12, last part)


Episode Description: In this final session of Zen Brain, the faculty address remaining questions from the program participants.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Saturday, February 08, 2014

The New Sciences of Networks & Complexity: A Short Introduction


From Cadmus, this is a nice introduction and overview to network and complexity science.

The New Sciences of Networks & Complexity: A Short Introduction

ARTICLE | | BY Raoul Weiler, Juri Engelbrecht


Abstract

This paper is the result of two recent e-workshops organized by The World Academy of Art and Science (WAAS), one on the Science of Networks, the other on Complexity. These Sci­ences have emerged in the last few decades and figure among a large group of ‘new’ sciences or knowledge acquisitors. They are connected with one another and are very well exposed in the diagram available under the name ‘Map of Complexity Science’ on Wikipedia. Networks exist in extremely diverse contexts: in the biological world, in social constructions, in urbanism, climate change and many more. The novelty appears in the correlations and the laws (e.g. power laws), which were discovered recently, and indicates a totally different appraisal from what was generally expected to exist. The Science of Complexity is directly related to networks. Networks are an essential part of the complexity phenomenon. Their applications, which are highly diverse, are recommended by several scientists; decision makers and politicians have to make use of this knowledge for better evaluation of the impact of their decisions in increasingly complex societies and as a function of time. The paper mentions a recent report on Complexity in Economics and the Economic Complexity Index.

1. Preamble & Frame

Networks and complexity have been recognized since quite a few decades. In recent years, real breakthroughs have taken place with the help of newmathematical instruments. Other ‘new sciences’ have emerged, say in about half a century, as illustrated by the comprehensive diagram published in Wikipedia;1 the diagram comes from a book by Brian Castellani and Frederic Hafferty2 titled Sociology and Complexity Science: A New Field of Inquiry (2009), and is called the Map of Complexity Science. It was a helping hand for drafting this paper, and is further highly recommended to be consulted. A multitude of new knowledge ‘providers’ have shown new ways and insights for exploring entities, ensembles and behavior of groups in very different domains. According to the diagram, quite a number of new sciences have emerged since the mid-20th century: the essential pillars for new ideasare Systems Theory,3 Cybernetics4 and Artificial Intelligence; a series of specific approaches emerge from there.

Cybernetics plays a central role in the acquisition of new or additional knowledge. Merriam-Webster defines the term this way:
“Cybernetics is the science of communication and control theory that is concerned especially with the comparative study of automatic control systems (as the nervous system and brain and mechanical-electrical communication systems).”
According to the diagram, the Science of Complexity was preceded and followed directly or in parallel by a series of new methods and approaches such as self-organization/autopoiesis, New Sciences of Networks and Global Network society. Not to forget the importance of the Dynamics of Systems Theory in which Jay Forrester of MIT occupies a major role which led to the publication of The Limits to Growth(1972),the first report to the Club of Rome.5

We all agree that our societies evolve to more complex entities; the evolution is expressed by economic globalization, planetary communications – wired and wireless – geopolitical conflicts, and the like. However, the decision processes at the political and societal levels continue to rely on habits and practices from ancient times: the rule of thumb method is still used in decision processes. The linear analysis in decision processes still remains the most used approach in management and governance questions, although we are aware of the complexity of societal situations. Therefore, the new sciences,6, 7 in particular networks and complexity, provide excellent new methods for analysis and prospective insights. As a matter of fact, we may treat networks as patterns or structures but complexity is an implicit property of such structures. 
Focusing on New Sciences looks to be a very promising endeavor, in particular for WAAS. Although the field of these new ‘knowledge producers’ is extremely broad, it provides new understandings, and establishes specific relationships between actors in many branches of sciences and contributes beyond present assumptions.

The New Sciences are to be understood as complementary to the ‘classical’ sciences; they ‘uncover’ new relationships, new laws (of mathematical character), and new characteristics among the parameters. The new sciences enable us to take non-linear relationships within systems into account, which was almost impossible before.

There are several fundamental problems where the applications of the Sciences of Networks & Complexity provide new insights in pure scientific domains, for example in the functioning of metabolisms in micro-organisms; applications in the domain of climate change and eco-biosphere are expected to bring a better understanding on the regional and planetary scale. In the fields of sociology and economics, these problems include new methods which enhance diagnostics that were not available before.
The governance of complex industrialized societies requires a better understanding of their underlying trends and institutional political decision processes. The methods applied so far do not appear to be able to provide appropriate guidelines. New insights into the organiza­tion of very large institutions, ministries and businesses, of international governing bodies, and perhaps in the governance of financial world, etc. require approaches which the science of networks and complexity can offer.

For long, scientists have expressed the need for cross-domain analyses, overcoming the exclusive approach of specialized understanding and arriving at an overarching understanding, denominated as a holistic methodology. The Western science and culture of the Renaissance have made tremendous progress based on reductionist analytical methods. However, these assumptions are frequently insufficient for a deeper understanding of reality. The well-known phrase ‘The whole is more than the sum of the parts’ (attributed to Aristotle) is not only correct but now much more practicable than a reductionist approach. With the emergence of the Systems Theory, Complexity Science and related methods, a holistic understanding is at reach.

2. The Science of Networks

Several models of networks8 have been described over time: Random Network known as the Erdös-Rényi Model9 (1959); Scale-Free Model known as the BA Model called after Barabasi & Albert10, 11 (1999); Small World Model known as the Watts-Strogatz algorithm12(2008).
It must be stressed that mathematical tools have contributed substantially to analyses of the descriptions, characteristics and properties of networks, thus contributing to an understanding of reality which is yet to be recognized.

2.1 Scale-Free Networks and Power Law13, 14

Over the past few years, investigators from a variety of fields have discovered that many networks – from the World Wide Web to a cell’s metabolic system to actors in Hollywood –are dominated by a relatively small number of nodes that are connected to many other nodes.

Networks containing such important nodes or hubs tend to be what is called “scale-free” in the sense that a lower number of hubs has higher links and many nodes have less number of links. The surprising discovery was that these networks do not behave in the expected random behavior, which is a generally accepted description of phenomena in physics, result­ing frequently in the well-known ‘bell’ curve coming from a usual statistical distribution, characterized by log-log relationships which form the ‘power law’.

It is important that the scale-free networks behave in certain predictable ways: for example, they are remarkably resistant to accidental failures but extremely vulnerable to coordinated attacks.

As an example, counting how many webpages have exactly k links showed that the distribution followed a so-called power law: the probability that any node is connected to k other nodes is proportional to 1/kn. The value of n for incoming links is approximately 2. Power laws are quite different from the bell-shaped distributions that characterize random networks. Specifically, a power law does not have a peak like a bell curve does (Poisson distribution), but is instead described by a continuously decreasing function. When plotted on a log-log scale, a power law is a straight line. In contrast to a ‘democratic’ distribution of links seen in random networks, power laws describe systems in which a few hubs dominate.

2.2 Some Important Properties of Networks

2.2.1 Resilience /Robustness15

As humanity becomes increasingly dependent on electricity grids and communication webs, a much-voiced concern arises: Exactly how reliable are these types of networks? The good news is that complex systems can be amazingly resilient against accidental failures. In fact, although hundreds of routers routinely malfunction on the Internet at any moment, the network rarely suffers major disruptions. A similar degree of robustness characterizes living systems: people rarely notice the consequences of thousands of errors in their cells, ranging from mutations to misfolded proteins.

What is the origin of this robustness? Intuition tells us that the breakdown of a substantial number of nodes will result in a network’s inevitable fragmentation. This is certainly true for random networks: if a critical fraction of nodes is removed, these systems break into tiny, non-communicating islands.
Yet, simulations of scale-free networks tell us a different story: as many as 80 percent of randomly selected Internet routers can fail and the remaining ones will still form a compact cluster in which there will still be a path between any two nodes.

It is equally difficult to disrupt a cell’s protein-interaction network: measurements indicate that even after high levels of random mutations are introduced, the unaffected proteins will continue to work together.

In general, scale-free networks display an amazing robustness against accidental fail­ures, a property that is rooted in their inhomogeneous topology. The random removal of nodes will take out the small ones mainly because they are much more plenty than hubs. And the elimination of small nodes will not disrupt the network topology significantly, because they contain few links compared with the hubs, which connect to nearly everything. But a reliance on hubs has a serious drawback: vulnerability to attacks.

In a series of simulations, it was found that the removal of just a few key hubs from the Internet splintered the system into tiny groups of hopelessly isolated routers. Similarly, knockout experiments in yeast have shown that the removal of the more highly connected proteins has a significantly greater chance of killing the organism than the deletion of other nodes. These hubs are crucial; if mutations make them dysfunctional, the cell will most likely die.

2.2.2 Strengths and Weaknesses

A reliance on hubs can be advantageous or not depending on the system.

First, one has to note that resistance to randombreakdown is good news for both the Internet and the cell. In addition, the cell’s reliance on hubs provides pharmaceutical re­­searchers with new strategies for selecting drug targets, potentially leading to cures that would kill only harmful cells or bacteria by selectively targeting their hubs, while leaving healthy tissues unaffected.

Second, the ability of a small group of well-informed hackers to crash the entire communications infrastructure by targeting its hubs is a major reason for concern.

2.3 Some Examples of Applications

Over the past several years, researchers have uncovered scale-free structures in a stunning range of systems which include
  • the World Wide Web;
  • some social networks. A network of sexual relationships among people (from a research in Sweden) followed a power law: although most individuals had only a few sexual partners during their lifetime, a few (the hubs) had hundreds;
  • the network of people connected by e-mail;
  • the network of scientific papers, connected by citations, follows a power law: collaborations among scientists in several disciplines, including physicians and computer scientists;
  • business networks; a study on the formation of alliance networks in the U.S. bio-technology industry discovered definite hubs;
  • the network of actors in Hollywood: popularized by the game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, in which players try to connect actors via the movies in which they have appeared together. A quantitative analysis of that network showed that it, too, is dominated by hubs;
  • biological realm: in the cellular metabolic networks of 43 different organisms from all three domains of life, including Archaeoglobus fulgidus (an archae-bacterium), Escherichia coli (a eubacterium) and Caenorhabditis elegans (a eukaryote), it was found that most molecules participate in just one or two reactions, but a few (the hubs), such as water and adenosine triphosphate, play a role in most of them;
  • protein-interaction network of cells. In such a network, two proteins are “connected” if they are known to interact with each other. Investigating Baker’s yeast, one of the simplest eukaryotic (nucleus-containing) cells, with thousands of proteins, a scale-free topology was discovered: although most proteins interact with only one or two others, a few are able to attach themselves physically to a huge number; a similar result was found in the protein-interaction network of an organism that is very different from yeast, a simple bacterium called Helicobacter pylori.
Indeed, the more scientists studied networks, the more scale-free structures were discovered. These findings raised an important question: How can systems as fundamentally different as the cell and the Internet have the same architecture and obey the same laws? Not only are these various networks scale-free, they also share an intriguing property: for reasons not yet known, the value of nin the knterm of the power law tends to fall between 2 and 3.

A compelling question arises: How many hubs are essential? Recent research suggests that, generally speaking, the simultaneous elimination of as few as 5 to 15% of all hubs can crash a system.

3. The Science of Complexity

3.1 General Remarks

The focus lies on the innovative character of this new science, in terms of scientific development: mathematical, biological, as well as in terms of societal behavior, in particular in sociology but also in economics. Will industrial societies evolve to a new pattern of evolution/development under the influence of these new network facilities created by entirely new technologies? Relationship between individuals, or inter-subjectivity, will depend on the availability and accessibility of network and complexity methodologies. Therefore, uncovering new types of relationships enables more sustainable prospective scenarios on how our industrial societies will or could look like by the mid-21st century.

Important issues to be examined are democratic processes through the existence or ‘spontaneous’ emergence of networks. This new phenomenon becomes an important parameter in electoral campaigns, in major political processes as overthrowal of leaders, local and community issues. This very interesting domain is open for debate and reflection.

The state of knowledge about networking and complexity will play an increasing role in understanding the organization and functions of societies. Some most recent events and tendencies, in a large variety of domains, indicate the richness of applicability of these sciences: analysis and search for remediation of the worldwide financial crises; underlying political channels and possible solutions regarding the events in the Middle East; nature and size of social developments in nations with emerging economies; health research and disease dis­semination; impact of diminishing bio-diversity on human society and on a planetary scale etc.

The issues which have not yet found appropriate and durable (sustainable) answers will most likely find substantial progress with the application of these new sciences. The understanding of such phenomena requires other type of approaches – more holistic than reductionist – necessary for improved diagnosis and resulting in a better understanding and increased acceptance of proposed solutions.

In the case of world problems, the search for appropriate solutions by international or­ganizations within the present political frame shows quite clearly that progress can only be made by other approaches than the one used until now, based on scientific analysis and understanding, in which these new sciences will play a substantial role.

3.2 The Science of Complexity: Definitions, Properties & Tools

3.2.1 Definitions

Defining complexity remains not an easy task. Some definitions below are taken from publications and depend strongly on the viewpoint of the authors.

From Melanie Mitchell (2009):16
“Complexity is a system in which large networks of components with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex collective behavior, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution.
From Roger Lewin(1993):1
“Complexity science offers a way of going beyond the limits of reductionism, because it understands that much of the world is not machine-like and comprehensible through a cataloging of its parts; but consists instead mostly organic and holistic systems that are difficult to comprehend by traditional scientific analysis.
From the OECD Global Science Forum Applications of Complexity Science for Public Policy: New Tools for Finding Unanticipated Consequences and Unrealized Opportunities (2009):1
“Government officials and other decision makers increasingly encounter a daunting class of problems that involve systems composed of very large numbers of diverse interacting parts. These systems are prone to surprising, large-scale, seemingly uncontrollable, behaviors. These traits are the hallmarks of what scientists call complex systems.

An exciting, interdisciplinary field called complexity science has emerged and evolved over the past several decades, devoted to understanding, predicting, and influencing the behaviors of complex systems. The field deals with issues that science has previously had difficulty addressing (and that are particularly common in human systems) such as: non-linearities and discontinuities; aggregate macroscopic patterns rather than causal microscopic events; probabilistic rather than deterministic outcomes and predictions; change rather than stasis.
3.2.2 Some Properties

The promise of complexity science for policy applications is, at its core, the hope that science can help anticipate and understand the key patterns in complex systems that involve or concern humans, thus enabling wiser decisions about policy interventions.
Some important characteristics of complex systems are:
  • Adaptability: independent constituents interact changing their behaviors in reaction to those of others, and adapting to a changing environment;
  • Emergence: novel pattern that arises at the system level not predicted by fundamental properties of the system’s constituents;
  • Self-organization: a system that operates through many mutually adapting constituents where no entity designs it or directly controls it;
  • Attractors: some complex systems spontaneously and consistently revert to recognizable dynamic states known as attractors. While they might theoretically be capable of exhibiting a huge variety of states, in fact they mostly exhibit the constrained attractor states;
  • Self-organized Criticality: a complex system may possess a self-organizing attractor state that has an inherent potential for abrupt transitions of a wide range of intensities. For a system that is in a self-organized critical state, the magnitude of the next transition is unpredictable, but the long-term probability distribution of event magnitudes is a regularly known distribution (a “power law”);
  • Chaos: chaotic behavior is characterized by extreme sensitivity to initial conditions;
  • Non-linearity: non-linear relationships require sophisticated algorithms, and are sometimes probabilistic in nature. Small changes might have large effects, large changes could have little or no effects;
  • Phase Transitions: system behavior changes suddenly and dramatically (and, often, irreversibly) because a “tipping point”, or phase transition point, is reached. Phase transitions are common in nature: boiling and freezing of liquids, the onset of superconductivity in some materials when their temperature decreases beyond a fixed value;
  • Power Laws: probabilistic distribution characterized by a slowly decreasing function (log-log), different from the ‘familiar’ bell-shaped curve.
3.2.3 Tools and Techniques for Complexity Science

Some of the most important complexity tools being used in public policy domains at this time are:
  • Agent-based or Multi-agent Models: in computerized, agent-based simulations, a synthetic virtual “world” is populated by artificial agents who could be individuals, families, organizations, etc. The agents interact adaptively with each other and also change with the overall conditions in the environment;
  • Network Analyses: a common feature of many complex systems is that they are best represented by networks, which have defined structural features and follow specific dynamic laws. Scientists seek to identify configurations that are especially stable (or particularly fragile); some network patterns have been identified as predictors of catastrophic failures in real-life networks: electricity-distribution or communication infrastructures.
Additional complexity-related techniques deserve a special mention, although their use is not unique to complexity science: Data Mining, Scenario Modeling, Sensitivity Analysis, Dynamical Systems Modeling.

3.3 Possible Applications in the Public Policy Domain

Several examples of application domains have been explored, e.g.: epidemiology & contagion; traffic, identification of terrorist associations. Of more general interest is climate change, in particular the social and human aspects – connection between economy, finance, energy, industry, agriculture and the natural world. These new degrees of sophistication can only be achieved using complexity science.

Complexity science techniques can be useful in identifying dangerous tipping points in the human-earth system, which can occur independently of purely geophysical transitions. Perhaps, the most likely disruption of this type involves the management of water resources. Drought and water stresses occur regularly across large sections of Europe and the developing world. There are indications that a tipping point may be near, leading to massive long-term water shortages.

3.4 A Recent Topic: Economic Complexity19

The recently published The Atlas of Economic Complexity and the Index (ECI) defined in that publication have largely inspired what follows.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the most used indicator to measure the level of economic activity and its evolution in time in terms of economic growth. GDP per capita is used to express the average wealth of the population of a country. However, GDP falls short when it comes to evaluating the well-being of a society.

Many attempts have been undertaken to improve or find better indices to express real progress in well being. In the frame of the Science of Complexity, an interesting approach has been proposed, rather recently, with the creation of the Economic Complexity Indicator (ECI), which focuses on the structure of the economy of a country and enables the diagnosis of its further development or progress, essentially based on the amount of knowledge available in a society for producing goods and services.

In a way ECI shows substantial progress in the evaluation of the economy of a country compared to what the GDP does. The many attempts for elaborating a ‘new’ economic system cannot oversee this innovative approach in using new sciences such as Networks and Complexity.
 
3.4.1 What is Economic Complexity?20

The complexity of an economy is related to the multiplicity of useful knowledge embedded in it. For a complex society to exist, and to sustain itself, people who know about design, marketing, finance, technology, human resource management, operations and trade laws, must be able to interact and combine their knowledge to make products. These same products cannot be made in societies that are missing parts of this capability set. Economic com­plexity, therefore, is expressed in the composition of a country’s productive output and reflects the structures that emerge to hold and to combine knowledge.

Knowledge can only be accumulated, transferred and preserved if it is embedded in networks of individuals and organizations that put this knowledge into productive use. Knowledge that is not used, at least as used in this economic context, however, is also not transferred, and will disappear once the individuals and organizations that have it retire or die.

Complex economies are those that can weave vast quantities of relevant knowledge together, across large networks of people, to generate a diverse mix of knowledge-intensive products. Simpler economies, in contrast, have a narrow base of productive knowledge and produce fewer and simpler products, which require smaller webs of interaction. Because individuals are limited in what they know, the only way societies can expand their knowledge base is by facilitating the interaction of individuals in increasingly complex webs of organizations and markets. Increased economic complexity is necessary for a society to be able to hold and use a larger amount of productive knowledge, and we can measure it from the mix of products that countries are able to make.

3.4.2 The Economic Complexity Index (ECI) & the Product Complexity Index (PCI)

First, the amount of embedded knowledge that a country has, is expressed in its productive diversity, or the number of distinct products that it makes. Second, products that demand large volumes of knowledge are feasible only in the few places where all the requisite knowledge is available. We define ubiquity as the number of countries that make a product. Using this terminology, we can observe that complex products – those that are based on much knowledge – are less ubiquitous. The ubiquity of a product, therefore, reveals information about the volume of knowledge that is required for its production. Hence, the amount of knowledge that a country has is expressed in the diversity and ubiquity of the products that it makes.

Economic Complexity Index (ECI) refers to countries. The corresponding measure for products gives us the Product Complexity Index (PCI). The mathematical approach exploits the combination of these indices as well as the diversity and ubiquity to create measures that approximate the amount of productive knowledge held in each of these countries.

In short, economic complexity matters because it helps explain differences in the level of income of countries, and more importantly, because it predicts future economic growth. Economic complexity may not be simple to accomplish, but the countries that do achieve it, tend to reap important rewards.

4. Complexity Science: New ways of Thinking for Policymakers (see OECD Report)21

The suggested new ways of thinking focus their attention on dynamic connections and evolution, not just on designing and building fixed institutions, laws, regulations and other traditional policy instruments:
  • Predictability: the science of complex systems focuses on identifying and analyzing trends and probabilities, rather than seeking to predict specific events. It will be challenging, though necessary, for policymakers and scientists alike to move beyond strict determinism if they wish to effectively engage in decision making under conditions of uncertainty and complexity.
  • Control: control is generally made possible by identifying cause-and-effect chains and then manipulating the causes. But cause and effect in complex systems are distributed, intermingled and not directly controllable. Complexity science offers many insights into finding and exploiting desirable attractors; identifying and avoiding dangerous tipping points; and recognizing when a system is in a critical self-organizing state.
  • Explanation: analyses done using complexity science methods, insights about the underlying mechanisms that lead to complex behavior are revealed. Although deterministic quantitative prediction is not generally achieved, the elucidation of the reasons for complex behavior is often more important for comprehending what might otherwise be puzzling real-world events.
  • Changing the Mindset: understanding the basic ideas of complexity of the world together with unpredictability. One should not forget that Albert Einstein has warned: “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts”.

Notes

  1. Brian Castellani, “Complexity Map Overview,” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Complexity-map-overview.png
  2. Brian Castellani and Frederic Hafferty, Sociology and Complexity Science: A New Field of Inquiry (New York: Springer, 2009)
  3. Immanuel Wallerstein, World-Systems Analysis: An Introduction (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004)
  4. Merriam-Webster Online, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cybernetics
  5. Donella H. Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1972)
  6. Melanie Mitchell, Complexity: A Guided Tour (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
  7. Roger Lewin, Complexity: Life at the Edge of Chaos (London: Phoenix paperbacks, 1993)
  8. M. E. J. Newman, “The Structure and Function of Complex Networks” http://arxiv.org/pdf/condmat/0303516.pdf
  9. Stefano Boccaletti et al., “Complex Networks: Structure and Dynamics,” Elsevier, Physical Reports 424, no. 4-5 (2006): 175-308
  10. Albert-László Barabási, Linked: The New Science of Networks (Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2002)
  11. Albert-László Barabási and Eric Bonabeau, “Scale-Free Networks,” Scientific American 288, no. 5 (2003): 50-59 http://www.barabasilab.com/pubs/CCNR-ALB_Publications/200305-01_SciAmer-ScaleFree/200305-01_SciAmer-ScaleFree.pdf
  12. Duncan J. Watts, Six Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age (New York: W.W. Norton, 2003)
  13. "Report on: Applications of Complexity Science for Public Policy: New Tools for Finding Unanticipated Consequences and Unrealized Opportunities,” OECD http://www.oecd.org/sti/sci-tech/43891980.pdf
  14. Gérard Weisbuch and Sorin Solomon, eds., Tackling Complexity in Science: General Integration of the Application of Complexity in Science (Gloucester: Renouf Publishing Company Limited, 2007)
  15. Barabási and Bonabeau, “Scale-Free Networks”
  16. Melanie Mitchell, Complexity
  17. Roger Lewin, Complexity
  18. “Report on: Applications of Complexity Science for Public Policy”
  19. Ricardo Hausmann et al., The Atlas of Economic Complexity- Mapping Paths to Prosperity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2011) http://atlas.media.mit.edu/book/
  20. Guido Caldarelli et al., Ranking and Clustering Countries and their Products; A Network Analysis, PLoS ONE 7, no. 10 (2012): e47278
  21. “Report on: Applications of Complexity Science for Public Policy”

About the Author(s)

Raoul Weiler
Member of the Comité de Pilotage, Division de l'éthique des sciences et des technologies, of UNESCO
Juri Engelbrecht
Vice-President of the Estonian Academy of Sciences