>Two things are emerging in this conversation for me. One is the use of
>language and the other is a distinction between principles as "attractors"
>and "rules".
>The second area of interest to me is the confusion caused by referring to
>limits and proscription as "rules" especially when they are absolute and
>stated as though they stand independently and also referring to sets of
>principles as "rules".
>
>The latter, like in the declaration of independence and bill of rights of
>the USA - at least as they can be conceived - are a complex set that, in
>combination, create the possibility of rich, varied, intelligent life
>without specific limit.
>
>I suggest that if we treat these both with the same linguistic label of
>"rules" that the power of the latter will be lost.
>
>This is relevant to corporate organisation in all the culture change and
>transformation stuff that is going on.
I totally agree with Mike here. And I'm happy to share with you the
limits of my own understanding: I think I understand how rules operate,
if we restrict the term rules to way it is used in simulations [see below
-'crules'], and I can see how principles CAN act as rules in the
simulation sense, but I'm not that clear on how principles can act as
attractors- I hope this admission will stimulate Mike to explain his ideas
some more.
When I attempt to explain the 'rules' operating in the Game of Life
simulation, or in the Boids simulation, I find myself trying to articulate
just the distinction that Mike is referring to.
*see below for the 'entry' from my writing on Boids*
I still haven't improved on the idea of 'tendencies', but even that isn't
strong enough because the tendencies are usually overwhelming...
I attempted to coin a new word about a year ago [or to engineer a new
meme, if you like] to trap this idea. The word was 'crules', the 'c'
standing for 'complexity'. In the boids simulation the 3 rules are
crules- you don't HAVE to follow them, but there may be consequences if
you don't . I liked 'crules' because it suggested 'cruel' as in 'pitiless
nature', as in Natural Selection [please don't think I'm a social
darwinist, btw; crules for me are part of the deeper reality of emergent
order that counters the random indifference of Natural Selection, but I
digress.]
Daniel Dennett in 'Consciousness Explained', talks about consciousness as
an 'epiphenomenon'- that is what we think of as our consciousness may just
be a report of activity already carried out by the whole system that is
'ourself' not just our 'mind'. This idea is certainly consonant with the
sort of whole body view of cognition as presented by various authors
[including Varela]. Just as Freud and Darwin disabused of the notion that
we are masters [yes this is a very male notion!] of the universe, Dennett
further shrinks our human self-esteem.
The question is: just how much of what we think of as conscious behaviour
[in groups at least] is in fact determined by crules?
============ quote from 'the Complexicon' =======================
======= part of the 'Learning from Complexity' pack follows ========
[note - 'xref' refers to a cross reference icon which appears in the
published version]
SELF-ORGANISATION
implications
Complex behaviour need not have a complex explanation. Order will emerge
from self-organisation. This points the way to a new more open and
adaptable form of teamwork in which individuals manage themselves within
clear boundaries.
about the idea
Self-organisation in a simulated flock
The essence of self-organisation is organisation from within a system,
rather than without (to use a Scottish turn of phrase). There is no
external agent outside of a self-organising system telling it what to do,
no top-down chain of command. The behaviour of a self-organising system
emerges from the network of interactions taking place inside it. Once
established, self-organising systems tend to persist, which is one reason
why management theorists are interested in them: they offer clues which
can help the process of creating a 'self-propelled' workforce.
[xref-complex adaptive system/emergence]
The 'Boids' simulation is an incredibly simple and tiny computer program
that successfully captures the essence of flocking behaviour, to such an
extent that when shown to ornithologists they accused its creator, Craig
Reynolds of faking it by digitising film of birds in flight. Flocking is
one example of what Kevin Kelly calls nature's favourite organisation
design -the flock or swarm. Fish in schools, birds in flocks, bees and
ants in swarms: coordinated masses of individual 'agents'. The Boids
simulation is now accepted not just as a suggestion of what the flocking
mechanism in nature might be, but as a description of the actual mechanism
that governs all flocking behaviour in organisms.
The boids: not a film, not directed by Craig Reynolds
Reynolds' basic idea was to place a large collection of autonomous,
birdlike agents - 'boids' - into a computer-generated environment full of
walls and obstacles. Each boid followed three simple rules of behavior:
1. It tried to maintain a minimum distance from other objects in the
environment, including other boids.
2. It tried to match velocities with boids in its neighbourhood.
3. It tried to move toward the perceived centre of mass of boids in its
neighbourhood.
The duck at the front is not the leader
Notice that there is no rule that says: 'Form a flock'. Instead, as in
the Game of Life, [xref Game of Life] the rules were entirely 'local',
referring only to what an individual boid could 'see' and do in its own
vicinity. So if a flock forms, it forms from the 'bottom up'- there is no
'leader boid' telling all the others what to do in a 'top-down'
hierarchical manner. As Nicholas Negroponte puts it: "The duck at the
front is not the leader." When a flock forms, as it does every time, it is
an emergent network phenomenon. [xref- complex adaptive system/emergence,
network and hierarchy ]
It doesn't matter how the simulation is started off: it can start with the
boids scattered around the computer screen completely at random. The
rules will always 'force' the boids to form a flock. Look at it from the
point of view of a single boid: if it is at the edge of the flock, rule 3
tells it to move in. If it is flying faster or slower than the boids near
it, Rule 2 says that it has to slow down or speed up. Rule 1 tells it to
keep its distance from the others. (This distance, like the other rules,
can be altered: different distances produce different types of flock
reminiscent of different bird species). So the boids spontaneously
collect themselves into a flock that can fly around obstacles in a very
fluid and natural manner, sometimes even breaking into 'subflocks' that
flow around both sides of an obstacle, rejoining on the other side! In
one of the runs, a boid 'accidentally' hit a pole, fluttered around for a
moment as though dazed, and then flew on to rejoin the flock.
Three little rules for self-organisation
Reynolds' view is that this 'dazed' boid proves that the overall behaviour
of the boids is actually emergent. Nowhere in the rules does it say what
the boid should do if it crashes into something. So part of the message is
this: if we can explain something that appears to be incredibly complicated
like flocking, with three little rules, are there any other things that
seem complicated that might turn out to be equally simple? The answer is
yes: this idea of emergent self-organisation has been succesfully applied
to explain the behaviour of traders in the stock market, and is generally
applicable to any situation in which 'agents' are free to choose, without
central control. [xref- increasing returns and lock-in] We can hear this
in the language of news reports: 'the market decided that the 3M flotation
was overpriced' is a statement about the emergent behaviour arising from
thousands of little transactions on the stock exchange; there was no-one
telling them to not buy the 3M shares, nobody called a meeting.
Sensitivity to initial conditions
Initial conditions are often important in complexity theory. This is
clearly illustrated in Boids. In Boids it is all the other boids that
largely determine what an individual boid will do. Think about releasing
birds one at a time into a space: you could imagine that you have hundreds
of pigeons in a net inside the Albert Hall. When the first pigeon is
released its options are completely open, it can fly where it likes because
the only rule that applies to it is rule 1: don't bump into anything, and
the Albert Hall is huge. Release another pigeon and the options narrow
dramatically: both birds now have to fly towards each other and match
speeds in order to obey rules 2 and 3. The next one out of the net has
no choices at all: it must head for the 'perceived centre of mass' (in
between the first two birds) and match speed with them. What we have here
is a robust phenomenon that is both sensitive and insensitive to initial
conditions: insensitive, because a flock always forms, sensitive because
the direction of flight is determined by the results of the first few
interactions.
Rules are tendencies
The rules aren't strict rules, they are perhaps better described as
tendencies. Birds tend to fly together in flocks, they tend to move
towards the centre of the flock. Natural selection has ensured that birds
that didn't have this strong tendency were eaten by predators. So the
rules make sense for the organisms most of the time; but if they weren't
broken from time to time there would be no growth or change. It is in the
nature of complex adaptive systems to push at the boundaries; species are
always trying to expand out of their current niches. Witness that coyotes
were found in the Bronx, as reported in the Observer, 2nd June 1996.
Critical Mass: human flocking
Critical Mass is an 'organised coincidence' which takes place in many
cities in the UK. It started in San Francisco in 1994 and has spread
across America and Europe. It is a once-a-month bike ride through major
cities in the rush hour. The idea is to enjoy cycling in the city and to
make a point about transport policy at the same time. Several hundred
cyclists turn out and peacefully take over the streets for a couple of
hours, just by riding en masse. All sorts of people are involved, from
office workers to local government officers and transport campaign
activists.
Critical Mass is genuinely self-organised: although it was started by a
small group of cycling activists they are not in charge of it and cannot
control it. Someone will suggest a route and the group moves off in that
direction. Once the 'flock' is moving its direction is determined by the
vagaries of other traffic, traffic signals and the mood of the people who
happen to be at the front at the time. Just as in Boids , a flock forms
in a ragged organic way, under the pressure of the rules. In London
traffic it is clear that not staying close to the other cyclists is
dangerous: taxis and cars take the place of hawks, to establish rule 3:
move toward the perceived centre of mass near you if you want to escape
the cars. Rule 1 is just obvious: keep a minimum distance from other
objects in the environment; as is rule 2: ride at the same speed as your
neighbours. One participant commented:
"The pressure of the pressure of the rules is amazing. I once got
separated from the main group with about ten others- suddenly the traffic
closed in, including cars whose drivers wanted to hold us personally
responsible for delaying their journey home by a few minutes. The urge to
rejoin the group as quickly as possible was incredible!"
The emergence of the same three rules in a 'human system' is compelling
evidence for the generality of the rules of self-organisation: Brian Eno
speculates that there are three general classes of rules of which the
boids rules are a particular case: a generative rule, a diminishing rule,
and a maintenance rule.
xrefs attractor, evolution of cooperation, evolution and coevolution,
increasing returns and lock-in
refs
Brian Eno, A year with swollen appendices: Brian Eno's diary, Faber and
Faber, 1996, ISBN 0-571-17995-9, 9.99
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control: the new biology of machines, Fourth Estate,
1994, ISBN 1-85702-308-0, 8.99
Michael McMaster, The Intelligence Advantage: Organising for Complexity,
Butterworth Heinemann, 1996, ISBN 0-7506-9792-X, 14.99
Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital, Coronet Books, 1995, ISBN
0-34064-930-5, 6.99
M Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order
and Chaos,
Penguin, 1994, ISBN 0 6708 5045 4 7.99
Various versions of the Boids simulation are available at Artificial Life
websites on the Internet. There are several of these, where software can
be obtained either as 'freeware' or 'shareware'.
relevance
What does 'Boids' tell us?
Two key messages: complex behaviour need not have a complex explanation and
order will emerge from 'self-organisation. Management theorists develop
complex explanations for behaviour in the workplace; it is often the case
that a few underlying rules are 'powering' all the complex behaviour
observed on the surface. The 'Shifting the shift patterns' restaurant case
study of in 'evolution and coevolution' can be viewed as an example of
locked-in behaviour maintained by a few rules: the rule were changed and
the behaviour changed. [xref- evolution and coevolution]
The rules at work
In the restaurant case the clue is that all the staff were sure that they
would suffer personally, although they could see the benefits of the
proposed change. This is a clue to the interdependency that Boids-type
rules generate. The environment for the birds in the simulation is mainly
made up of other birds. In a restaurant, the actions of the workers are
similarily strongly interdependent. If one waiter doesn't turn up for work
all the waiting staff suffer. When tips are pooled a peer-pressure rule
ensures that everyone pulls their weight. So we can describe the
interactions of the staff as taking place on a fitness landscape in which
the shape of the landscape is mainly determined by the actions of the other
staff. They are their own environment (this idea has echoes of the
self-referentiality of autopoiesis). [xref- autopoiesis ] When the rules
were changed by their manager introducing the new shift pattern, they all
changed their behaviour together, like a flock.
A new view of team leadership
The illusion of coordination which emerges in Boids can also be viewed as
an 'attractor'. [xref- attractor]. Where is the leadership in the
leaderless flock? Leadership is the emergent behaviour of the whole
system. Is this perhaps what is going on in teams? How often do we assume
that there must be a leader? As Michael McMaster says "Try viewing
leadership as an attractor." In the restaurant example their manager is
also one of the team: she is not leading in the sense of telling people
what to do from minute to minute. Her role as manager is to set the rules
to create the appropriate emergence. This is the true meaning of
self-organisation: like many scientific terms it can be misleading, a
clearer though more unweildy term would be 'rule-driven self-organisation'.
Self-organisation points the way to a new more open and adaptable form of
teamwork in which individuals manage themselves within clear boundaries.
[xref- dialogue, Self-organising For Success]
--from Arthur Battram, organiser of the LGMB project 'Tools for Learning': helping local authorities to apply complexity concepts to personal and organisational learning. 'Learning from Complexity' pack available December '96, likely cost is now 100 full price [50 -half price- for local authorities in England and Wales who finance LGMB] for details email me: apb@cityplex.demon.co.uk "complexity is in here... and simplicity is out there...if we want it to be..."
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>