background preloader


3D representation of a living cell during the process of mitosis, example of an autopoietic system. The original definition can be found in Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living (1st edition 1973, 2nd 1980): Page 78: - An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network. [1] Page 89:- [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. Meaning[edit] Criticism[edit] See also[edit] Notes and references[edit] Further reading[edit] External links[edit] Related:  Biologie / chimieComplexity

Niklas Luhmann Niklas Luhmann (December 8, 1927 – November 6, 1998) was a German sociologist, and a prominent thinker in sociological systems theory. Biography[edit] Luhmann was born in Lüneburg, Lower Saxony, where his father's family had been running a brewery for several generations. After graduating from the Johanneum school in 1943, he was conscripted as a Luftwaffenhelfer in World War II and served for two years until, at the age of 17, he was taken prisoner of war by American troops in 1945.[3] After the war Luhmann studied law at the University of Freiburg from 1946 to 1949, when he obtained a law degree, and then began a career in Lüneburg's public administration. During a sabbatical in 1961, he went to Harvard, where he met and studied under Talcott Parsons, then the world's most influential social systems theorist. In later years, Luhmann dismissed Parsons' theory, developing a rival approach of his own. Works[edit] Systems theory[edit] The core element of Luhmann's theory is communication.

System dynamics Dynamic stock and flow diagram of model New product adoption (model from article by John Sterman 2001) System dynamics is an approach to understanding the behaviour of complex systems over time. It deals with internal feedback loops and time delays that affect the behaviour of the entire system.[1] What makes using system dynamics different from other approaches to studying complex systems is the use of feedback loops and stocks and flows. These elements help describe how even seemingly simple systems display baffling nonlinearity. Overview[edit] System dynamics (SD) is a methodology and mathematical modeling technique for framing, understanding, and discussing complex issues and problems. Convenient GUI system dynamics software developed into user friendly versions by the 1990s and have been applied to diverse systems. System dynamics is an aspect of systems theory as a method for understanding the dynamic behavior of complex systems. History[edit] Topics in systems dynamics[edit]

Umwelt Un article de Wikipédia, l'encyclopédie libre. La tique ne réagit qu'à trois stimuli externes, qui déterminent son Umwelt Selon Jakob von Uexküll et Thomas A. Description[modifier | modifier le code] Chaque élément fonctionnel d'un « monde propre » comporte une signification intrinsèque qui échappe à la perception qu'un organisme peut en avoir. En tant que concept, l'Umwelt unifie donc l'ensemble des processus sémiotiques (créateur de « sens ») d'un organisme. Il existe des similitudes entre la théorie de l'Umwelt de von Uexküll et la théorie du phénotype étendu de Richard Dawkins qui loin du déterminisme génétique strict laisse une part importante aux interactions entre un organisme et son milieu (via des processus centraux). La biosémiotique, parfois appelée sémiotique du vivant, est composée pour von Uexküll des seuls « marqueurs » qui sont, pour l'organisme considéré, porteur de sens, de signification. Ainsi, le cycle de vie de la tique ne répond qu'à trois stimuli externes :

Communicating Complexity | ADAM JORLEN Complex things are hard to communicate. But it’s nevertheless important to do it. Here are some of my reflections on how to communicate futures thinking or foresight – the rather complex field I’m working in. You might find some advice on how to communicate the complexities of your field. The post appeared first at the APF Emerging Fellows website. Communicating Foresight One of the ongoing discussions in the futurist community is about how to communicate foresight. This is the last post in a series on my reflections about communicating foresight. I don’t know how well I communicated foresight in these two posts (in its first month the Futurizers website had 114 hits – so not exactly a revolutionary impact…), but they gave me some new insights which lead me to think further on a good article by Richard Rowe (2005). The challenge of the upside-down pyramid Rowe uses Slaughter’s framework for layered futures. Image by author based on Rowe (2005) A service to our readers The Hourglass References

The Living Company THE LIVING COMPANY: Habits for survival in a turbulent business environment Prologue The Lifespan of a Company In the world of institutions, commercial corporations are newcomers. Their history comprises only 500 years of activity in the Western world, a tiny fraction of the time span of human civilization. Yet, if you look at them in the light of their potential, most commercial corporations are dramatic failures-or, at best, underachievers. There are a few. I didn't see these astonishing statistics until I had already spent more than two decades as a professional manager. Well, they don't. The implications of these statistics are depressing. Why, then, do so many companies die prematurely? Some Companies Last Hundreds of Years These understandings stemmed from a surprising study which we con-ducted in 1983, when I was coordinator of planning for the Royal Dutch/Shell Group. That was true at least until the 1970s. That was an interesting question. 1. 2. 3. 4. Defining the Living Company

Bruno Latour Bruno Latour (/ləˈtʊər/; French: [latuʁ]; born 22 June 1947) is a French philosopher, anthropologist and sociologist.[3] He is especially known for his work in the field of science and technology studies (STS).[4] After teaching at the École des Mines de Paris (Centre de Sociologie de l'Innovation) from 1982 to 2006, he became Professor at Sciences Po Paris (2006–2017), where he was the scientific director of the Sciences Po Medialab. He retired from several university activities in 2017.[5] He was also a Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics.[6][7] Latour's monographs earned him a 10th place among most-cited book authors in the humanities and social sciences for the year 2007.[10] Biography[edit] As a student, Latour originally focused on philosophy and was deeply influenced by Michel Serres. Awards and honors[edit] Holberg Prize[edit] A 2013 article in Aftenposten by Jon Elster criticised the conferment to Latour, by saying "The question is, does he deserve the prize

Complex system This article largely discusses complex systems as a subject of mathematics and the attempts to emulate physical complex systems with emergent properties. For other scientific and professional disciplines addressing complexity in their fields see the complex systems article and references. A complex system is a damped, driven system (for example, a harmonic oscillator) whose total energy exceeds the threshold for it to perform according to classical mechanics but does not reach the threshold for the system to exhibit properties according to chaos theory. History[edit] Although it is arguable that humans have been studying complex systems for thousands of years, the modern scientific study of complex systems is relatively young in comparison to conventional fields of science with simple system assumptions, such as physics and chemistry. Types of complex systems[edit] Chaotic systems[edit] For a dynamical system to be classified as chaotic, it must have the following properties:[2]

The Intelligent Plant In 1973, a book claiming that plants were sentient beings that feel emotions, prefer classical music to rock and roll, and can respond to the unspoken thoughts of humans hundreds of miles away landed on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction. “The Secret Life of Plants,” by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, presented a beguiling mashup of legitimate plant science, quack experiments, and mystical nature worship that captured the public imagination at a time when New Age thinking was seeping into the mainstream. The most memorable passages described the experiments of a former C.I.A. polygraph expert named Cleve Backster, who, in 1966, on a whim, hooked up a galvanometer to the leaf of a dracaena, a houseplant that he kept in his office. Backster and his collaborators went on to hook up polygraph machines to dozens of plants, including lettuces, onions, oranges, and bananas. “If you are a plant, having a brain is not an advantage,” Stefano Mancuso points out.

» Key insights from Singapore Foresight Week 2013 Roger Dennis : Serendipity Architect In 2011 the Prime Ministers office in Singapore sponsored a week of foresight conversations. This year saw the next iteration and I was invited back to the conversation. Once again there were about twenty of us from around the world that were invited, and the diversity of the conversation was only trumped by the quality. My notes are in mind-map form, and therefore I’m going to post some images from the event along with some insights and summation. Firstly – the pictures: Graphical recording from the fourth day of the week on the future of growth. Graphical recording from the fourth day of the week on the future of governance. Dave Snowden presenting his framework for foresight and complexity. Insights (in no order) It’s strategically important to have a good imagination and an adaptable mind.Most decision makers want simple answers, and ask the wrong questions. Summary To try to summarise the week is to fall into the trap of thinking conversation is a linear process.

Sociopolitical typology Sociopolitical typology refers to four types, or levels, of a political organization: “band,” “tribe,” “chiefdom,” and “state” created by the anthropologist Elman Service. Overview[edit] Thus, foragers as an economic type tend to have band organization. There have been many sociopolitical trends reflecting the increased regulatory demands associated with food production. References[edit] Elman Service, Primitive Social Organization (1962), Profiles in Ethnology (1963), Origins of the State and Civilization (1975) External links[edit]