CC BY
5
The Emergence of Complexity Georges CHAPOUTHIER1
Возникновение сложности Жорж ШАПУТЬЕ
What is complexity?
How did complexity first emerge, and specifically in living organisms which are the most complex systems found on earth? The next question is how can such complexity be seen in a Neo-Aristotelian philosophical perspective? The question will be addressed here by covering a number of ideas.
In previous studies2, we presented arguments showing that complexity developed stage by stage as determined by two basic principles: juxtaposition and integration.
The key idea is that in the living world (or even perhaps elsewhere3) complex anatomical architecture is the result of iterative application of two fundamental principles: the principle of juxtaposition of similar elements, followed by the principle of integration when the similar elements integrate with one another to form a unit of greater complexity incorporating the integrated elements that then become the component parts. Two very simple examples can be cited as illustrations of these processes. Physical cells in juxtaposition can form tissue where all the elements constituting the tissue are identical, before then integrating to form organs or organisms with component elements that can be different. Similarly animals can gather in groups to sleep, a group where each and every animal has the same functional purpose, but they can also integrate to form social groups where their roles
1 Emeritus Research Director (CNRS), "Controle Interoception Attention", Institut du cerveau et de la moelle
épiniere, and Institut d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences et des techniques, Paris, FRANCE.
2 In French: G. Chapouthier, L'homme, ce singe en mosaïque, Editions Odile Jacob, Paris, 2001.
In English: G. Chapouthier, The Mosaic Theory of Natural Complexity: A scientific and philosophical approach, [online]. La Plaine-Saint-Denis: Éditions des maisons des sciences de l'homme associées, 2018. Available on the Internet: <https://books.openedition.org/emsha/200>. ISBN: 9782821895744. In Russian: Жорж Шапутье, Мозаическая теория природной Органической сложности. Научно-философский подход, Biocosmology-Neo-Aristotelism (online), 2020, Vol. 10 (N° 3-4), pp. 330-405.
3 The astrophysicist Jean Audouze argued that stellar objects were mosaic constructions. Jean Audouze,
L'univers, in: J. Audouze, G. Chapouthier, D. Laming, P.Y. Oudeyer (dir.), 2015, Mondes Mosaïques CNRS Editions, Paris, pp. 15-58.
can be different, e.g. for bees, with the queen, the workers and male bees, or for humans with skilled workers, farmers and teachers.4
Drawing a parallel with art and mosaics where the integrated entities leave a certain degree of autonomy to the component parts (as in the examples cited with cells and individuals), a work of mosaic art does not cancel the autonomy of shape, colour, texture or sheen of each individual tessera forming the work.
The two principles can operate and be repeated, continuing both actions. Figure 1 presents a detailed explanation of the modalities applying to the two successive stages and ultimately leading to overall entities that are "mosaics of mosaics" as, for example, with a community of animals comprised of individuals, each one of which is already comprised of mosaics of organs and cells.
B
D
o o o 0 o 0
>< X ><
v- 0
o o 0 0 0
X X X
% %
Figure 1: Outline of mosaic construction built on repeated operation of the two principles identified: juxtaposition of identical units and the subsequent integration of the units at a higher level. The juxtaposition of units (A) will produce (B) where units (A) are identical then, through integration at (C), units develop differences in relation to one another. As part of (C), the units retain a certain degree of autonomy, as in a mosaic formation where the overall entity leaves a degree of autonomy to the component parts. The same
exercise can then be repeated, and thus the juxtaposition of units (C) will produce (D), then through integration (E), forming a "mosaic of mosaics" as for example with a community of animals comprised of individuals, each one of which is comprised of mosaics of organs and cells (Ref. G. Chapouthier, L'homme
ce singe en mosaïque, Editions Odile Jacob, Paris, 2001).
4 Looking at purely anatomical facts, it can be noted that when complex animals are physically mobile, the principles of juxtaposition and integration operate to a lesser degree. In vertebrates, for example, juxtaposition phenomena that are purely anatomical are observed (and sometimes referred to as "Siamese twins"), but the constraints imposed by movement show that integration cannot be extensive. This explains why at this level, as noted above, juxtaposition and integration remain at a stage of separate individuals being juxtaposed side by side, then integrated in a social context.
It is then quite feasible for the operation to be repeated, not just once, but many times, each time with the entities thus formed providing elements for a further cycle of juxtaposition and integration, producing an entity of greater complexity.
Observing the reality of living organisms, it can be seen that between the simplest level of organelles that combine to form a cell, and the highest level of individual beings that combine to form a community or society, there are only five or six cycles of juxtaposition-integration, covering the different levels of organelles, cells, organs, groups of organs (e.g. the "rings" of the earthworm, that subsequently appear in modified forms in the anatomy of many different animals), organisms (or individuals) and ultimately societies of individuals.
The mosaic model, while not directly based on Darwinian principles, is in line with Darwin's theory of biological evolution, presenting reasoned arguments offering an understanding of the biological diversity arising through sexual reproduction. When the model is applied to the anatomy of living beings, it can provide an explanation for the development of complex biological systems originating from single cells.
In a broader contest or on a larger scale, the mosaic model can describe complexity in memory, consciousness and language, in technical achievements such as drawing, music, urban planning, mathematics and information theory, and also in social entities and for ethical considerations or even for literary expression. Evidence supporting the mosaic model can be identified in diverse aspects of traditional, cultural or animal practices as has been recorded with reports on the use of tools, cognitive factors, communication and language, and there have even been observations of behaviour determined by moral or aesthetic responses5.
Mosaics and the Neo-Aristotelian approach
As a philosophical concept, the mosaic model can be related to the Biocosmological or Neo-Aristotelian stance as developed by the Russian scholar Konstantin Khroutski and his neo-Aristotelian school. Given Aristotle's argument that the universe is not built physically but biologically, a relationship can be found between the mosaic model of complexity and the Neo-Aristotelian approach. This does not imply that the universe as it is understood today has developed to gigantic proportions. The argument is that complexity in its different shapes and forms as found in
5 For further detail see G. Chapouthier, The Mosaic Theory of Natural Complexity: A scientific and philosophical approach, Op. cit.
the universe can be based on biological sub-entities. Rules applying to the complexity of living organisms may thus be seen as references to help understand the processes of complexity.
In modern biology, a number of aspects can be interpreted through Aristotelian entelechy, the concept of the combined accomplishment of a whole (holos) and of an ultimate purpose (telos), the purpose here being the internal construction of living organisms. This position is the opposite of vitalism. The concept is naturalist and can be seen in many manifestations ranging from embryology, cellular metabolism and genetics, to the evolution of the species and more general evolution developing ever-greater complexity, as presented in our mosaic model (Chapouthier, 2018)6. Studies analysing living organisms in motion, revealing the complexity of their movements, show that entelechy can be aligned with and complement Darwinian selection7.
When considering the concept of triunity as developed by Khroutski, it too can be seen as an elementary process involved in the functioning of living organisms. Khroutski (2010)8 studied biological parameters and identified cases of triunity in living beings including the sleep-wake cycle, systole-diastole and the "(one) vegetative (super) system: the parasympathetic, sympathetic and metasympathetic (sub)systems.9" Traditionally western medicine tends towards a binary approach, as for the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems, disregarding the autonomous action of the free ganglia in the metasympathetic nervous system which play a key role, e.g. for the heartbeat, this being spontaneous and continuous, without any input from the sympathetic and/or parasympathetic systems, although there may be occasional integration through counter-actions from the sympathetic and/or parasympathetic systems. In the apparently binary contrast of being asleep or awake, there is another state of awakening where both opposites may coincide or alternate.
In biology, triunity could have wider applications if and when there is a relationship to time-related metabolic changes that are then followed by ontogenetic development of living beings. Here too modern science would adopt a binary approach, identifying, for example, opposite reactions in a biochemical equilibrium forming the basis of cellular metabolism, in other words of life. At a greater level of integration, there is hormonal regulation and the binary relationship of hormones being released and inhibited. In higher animals effects on behaviour can be attributed to the two
6 G. Chapouthier, Aristotelian entelechy and modern biology, Biocosmology - Neo-Aristotelism, online,
2018, 8 (3-4), pp 421-429. DOI: 10.24411/2225-1820-2018-00021
7 Ibid.
8 K.S. Khroutski, All-embracing (triune) medicine of the individual health: a biocosmological perspective. J.
Future Studies, 2010; 14(4):65-84.
9 Ibid., p 70.
hemispheres of the brain. Arguing for simplicity, binary division is commonly observed in living beings. Animals move in relative bilateral symmetry, and some have symmetrical brain hemispheres, but observations focusing on binary opposites can overlook subsequent stages when two actions are ultimately balanced, then achieve stable ontogeny, "overruling each other b y turns10", reaching a state of "oneness of the two autonomous poles (bipolar unity)11" - a temporary stage of the opposition, creating triadic unity which may become the point for further triadic developments.
At another level, considering the general philosophical concept of dialectics and the proposed Biocosmology Initiative (that evolves its Biocosmological Trialectic approach) : here Thesis and the opposing Antithesis are the equally essential entities, while the Synthesis is the intermediate basis and the axis for going beyond and the successive Functionalist Integration (of both) on a higher (in complexity) evolutionary sphere - the concept of Triunity, in this light, may also be applied to both materialism (as for the Dialectics of Nature by Engels) and ideology (as for Hegel's dialectics)12.
With reference to von Bertalanffy and his holistic General System Theory13 where similar principles can be found in different fields of science and theory, the mosaic model can also apply, the argument being that the mosaic structure would be one such general principle. So while the mosaic model is essentially Neo-Aristotelian, it can also be reconciled with theories propounded by certain modern philosophers.
Negentropy
The second law of thermodynamics says that all material systems tend to reach a poor state of energy referred to as maximum entropy. In other words, allowing a margin for interpretation14, all material systems tend to maximum disorder. Exceptions to such a general argument obviously exist and modern figures in the science of thermodynamics such as Ilya Prigogine15 and Jacques Tonnelat16 provide excellent examples of this. In open non-equilibrium situations, i.e. "dissipative structures", matter and energy can be accumulated locally within a system, reversing the entropic path to reach a
10 Ibid., p 72.
11 Ibid., p 73.
12 G. Chapouthier, The Mosaic Theory of Natural Complexity: A scientific and philosophical approach, Op.
cit., pp. 26-27.
13 K.L. Von Bertalanffy, 1968, General System Theory: foundations, development, applications, George
Braziller, New York.
14 J.J. Matras, G. Chapouthier, 1984, La néguentropie : un artefact, Fundamenta Scientiae, 5/2, p. 141-151.
15 I. Prigogine, D. Kondepudi, 1998, Modern Thermodynamics: from heat engines to dissipative structures,
John Wiley, Chichester/New York.
16 J. Jacques, 1995, L'ordre issu du hasard, Comptes-Rendus de la Société de Biologie, 189, p. 215-237.
negentropic state. "The growth of natural orderliness under normal conditions is possible only in open non-equilibrium systems, in so-called dissipative structures."17 Living systems and organisms are distinctive: "Evolution (...) proceeds 'against the current', against the tendency toward general decomposition18".
Darwinian theory in the broadest sense may therefore be described as a reverse expression of the second law of thermodynamics as there is continual movement towards locally non-entropic oriented structures in "a dynamic process of generation of structures and of massive self-organization19." The result of such oriented evolution is the emergence of more complex structures. Described in different terms, culture has taken over from nature. In non-equilibrium situations, negentropic paths tend to run counter to the general or entropic path of the universe, and the same could be said for culture at a cognitive or intellectual level. Tools are used as an extension of the intrinsic physical capacities of a body. Interactions through chemical or biological factors gain further expression through communication and language skills. Cognitive rules and declarative memories20 expand an animal's potential for autonomy, thereby strengthening unconscious habits, i.e. basic procedural memories initially arising from lower organisms. The existence of a social community with rules and morals will see groups of living beings behaving with a certain degree of uniformity, while biological systems will develop higher levels of organization, complexity and autonomy. Reactions made on the basis of aesthetic considerations will offer an animal the possibility of choosing one of a number of behavioural responses, thereby achieving a higher degree of autonomy21. In the course of the life of a living being, the pathway followed will be both naturally and culturally negentropic. This correspondence with both Darwinian selection and Aristotelian entelechy is perfectly aligned.
Conclusion. The arguments as reported suggest that the model of complexity emerging in mosaic structures may be seen as an extension of modern Neo-Aristotelism. The same model can also complement Darwinian arguments and align with them. The Mosaic model corresponds organically with the Biocosmology Initiative and can be seen as modern adaptation of the philosophy of Aristotle as applied to the development and evolution of living organisms.
17 J. Smajs, 2008, Evolutionary Ontology, Rodopi publishers, Amsterdam, p. 81.
18 J. Smajs, Op. cit., p. 109.
19 L. Kovàc, 2015, Closing Human Evolution: life in the ultimate age, Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, p 20.
20 D.L. Schacter, 2001, The Seven Sins of Memory: how the mind forgets and remembers, Houghton Mifflin
publishers, Boston.
21 G. Chapouthier, 2009, Kant et le chimpanzé - Essai sur l'être humain, la morale et l'art, Berlin, Paris.
