<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Fascination at the edge of chaos.
Review: Before I read this book I had no idea what Complexity theory was. I picked up a sentence or two in another book about it, and decided to investigate. While Roger doesn't really state what complexity *is*, it is suffice that he tells you what it's all about.
I liked that the book was written as a journey into complexity, rather than throwing data at you. It flowed much more easily than anticipated, so much so I'd recommend it to my less academic friends.
If you're looking for a good introduction to complexity - especially in the field of biology, then pick up nothing other than this book. If you're looking for a more advanced insight into the science, I'd suggest you find something else. Although a magnificent intro, it's not in-depth enough for you to start adapting the idea to your field in my opinion.
Rating: 
Summary: Why read complexity?
Review: I am not a scientist. I am, however, interested in a wide variety of subjects and fascinated by complexity. I am not referring now to the book, or the subject but the expression in the real world of all that there is to know and understand. How can anyone live and not recognise at the deepest levels of their understanding that everything that exists does so in dependence on other things that exist and that this interdependence, because of the number of dynamic variables, cannot be described otherwise than a complex system. It is at this point that anyone who has read the book or who is a part of this book will protest that I have missed the point. I have not. This book isn't about a vague subjective comprehension of all things being related. It is much more scientific than that. I have started off this way because I am aware that in the hustle of everyday life-the place where most readers of books reside-the subject of the science of complexity is beyond even the periphery of what might occur to them as a topic to take an interest in, let alone find relevant. Having a general, non-expert appreciation for the immense complexity of which we are a part is an appropriate mindset to bring to any reading of the subject. The book is deserving of a wider appeal than for just new wave idea groupies. I find Lewin strikes the right balance with his reader presenting difficult concepts with elegant clarity yet providing enough detail to challenge the reader. To make the material too simple would leave the concepts incoherent-to provide too much would leave the reader behind. He also presents a balanced view of the subject. There are detractors in the scientific community. They are heard from. Lewin develops various concepts directly related to complexity rather cleverly. We are given a piece of concept that is added onto later in a different context providing us with a kaleidoscopic way of thinking of the material. It is all connected but our focus shifts slightly giving us a new view of the subject. In the beginning there were Boolean Networks. Other concepts follow: edge of chaos; complex adaptive systems; emergence. If anyone has ever wondered even in passing why is it that discrete bits of biota or data that do not amount to much in themselves can produce not only something more complex when put together but something that is more than the sum of its parts then Complexity is of interest to you. This book doesn't have to be the final authority or explain it all to be a very good read. And, in reference to other reviews, novel new ways of approaching scientific inquiry don't come from just anyone. Personalities matter. Putting the subject of complexity in the context of those who have been pursuing its secrets is not only acceptable but adds to our understanding. The implications for the opening up of new ways of seeing what we've heretofore been looking at 'through a glass darkly' are incredible. I can see why some of the leading scientists might find the subject worth their time and energy. So many things we wish to fix about how we operate within the system that supports us have proved intransigent to change. Perhaps this is because up to now we have been hampered by a too narrow view of what dynamics are relevant to a particular line of inquiry. Lewin has presented complexity as a good mystery novel. It is a non-fiction mystery novel the ending of which has yet to be written.
Rating: 
Summary: Rock Star Drivel
Review: Lewin fails to clearly define what complexity and chaos mean and the jocular, conversational style of this book never actually brings things in to focus. Much is made of "the edge of chaos" yet it is never actually defined or examplified. What examples exist are simplistic and only erode and hide what ever the point may be.
Rating:
Summary: Engagingly Written Science
Review: Roger Lewin engagingly writes of his discussions with leaders in the field of complexity, the study of non-linear, dynamical systems in the life sciences. Studies in 'chaos' theory and related fields like cellular automata have led to new formulations of self-organization and non-vitalistic emergence in living systems. Although still considered a fringe element by some of their colleagues, people like Stuart Kauffman, Chris Langton, Norman Packard and others are exploring models of "...common dynamical patterns in the realms of physics, biology, and society..." (193) which may radically change our understandings of evolution and consciousness. A cheering trend toward non-aristotelian directions.
Rating:
Summary: Engagingly Written Science
Review: Roger Lewin engagingly writes of his discussions with leaders in the field of complexity, the study of non-linear, dynamical systems in the life sciences. Studies in 'chaos' theory and related fields like cellular automata have led to new formulations of self-organization and non-vitalistic emergence in living systems. Although still considered a fringe element by some of their colleagues, people like Stuart Kauffman, Chris Langton, Norman Packard and others are exploring models of "...common dynamical patterns in the realms of physics, biology, and society..." (193) which may radically change our understandings of evolution and consciousness. A cheering trend toward non-aristotelian directions.
Rating:
Summary: A fine introduction and an interesting read
Review: The science of complexity, a discipline unique to the computer age, was born of chaos and a growing sense that there is something amenable to scientific inquiry about complex systems that we are missing. Before we had the number crunching power of computers, complexity could not be explored because the many variables resulted in astronomical calculations. In this revision of his book originally published in 1992, Roger Lewin explains what the science of complexity is all about through interviews with some of its most important practitioners (and critics) organized around some of the central ideas. As such this is both a fine introduction to the subject and an interesting read. Lewin includes 16 pages of photos of the scientists he interviewed captioned with a significant quote from each. He has added an afterword on the application of complexity science to business, and an appendix about John Holland, whom he dubs, "Mr. Emergence." "Everything works toward an ecology" is an old dictum of mine. I have the sense that I came up with that myself, but I probably read it somewhere years ago. At any rate, what is being said here is that complex systems work toward a state of equilibrium near a transition phase, near "the edge of chaos." This equilibrium can be an ecology (Darwin's "tangled web"); indeed it can be the entire planet, as in the concept of Gaia in which "the Earth's biological and physical systems are tightly coupled in a giant homeostatic system" (quoting Stuart Kauffman on page 109). A central idea is that "...large, interactive systems-dynamical systems-naturally evolve toward a critical state" (physicist Per Bak, quoted on page 61). These systems include weather, financial markets, piles of sand, and most significantly, ecologies, so that evolution itself is seen as shaped by the dynamics of complexity. Complexity is the "interesting" middle ground between order and the purely random, between the crystalized structure of ice and the Brownian motion of molecules. I had a curious sense of understanding when I compared these three states with positions at chess. First there is the even, static position, perhaps with bishops of opposite color in which no progress can be made, a drawn the inevitable result. Second there is the wildly chaotic position so complex that no one can completely calculate it, say the board after black takes white's queen knight pawn in the "poisoned pawn" variation of the Najdorf Sicilian. In between are the "interesting" positions in which one side might have a small advantage or there might be a dynamic balance of advantages, space versus material, for example, in which a startling combination might be hidden. These states-"at the edge of chaos"-are seen here as analogous to the phrase transition states of matter, from liquid to gas, for example. The idea is that there is a naturally occurring property of the physical world that forces complex systems into stable, readiness states near the edge of transition. What is exciting is that these states, because they are so "ripe" for change can be influenced or manipulated into change with small resources. Out of complexity comes something that could not be predicted by an analysis of its individual components, an emergent property of the system. I would note that such a natural phenomenon would be attractive to those who believe in punctuated evolution (e.g., Steven Jay Gould) and to those who believe that social and political change typically comes suddenly and with great force. Central to what complexity science is saying is that reductionism-which is the technique that has driven science to its present position of power and influence-is limited. "...[Y]ou have to look at the interactions as well as the parts," John Holland is quoted as saying on page 220. In other words, you have to take a holistic approach. However, the use of the word "holistic," a New Age shibboleth, is the just sort of thing that makes traditional scientists wince. Consequently, complexity science is not without its critics who argue that the fundamental mechanism of complexity exists only in a mystical sense and is therefore anathema to mainstream science. Even its practitioners, such as University of Michigan "complexologist" John Holland, admit they are still searching for the fundamental mechanism of this new science. He is quoted on page 214 as saying, "Our present understanding is not much better than the child saying that Jack Frost explains the wondrous colors of autumn." However most complexity scientists would say that the mechanism isn't mystical at all. It's just not understood yet. I would add that much of what we think we know about the world is based on relationships and phenomenon that we assume we understand, but really we don't. For example physicists say that gravity curves spacetime, but they don't say how it curves spacetime. Presumably gravitons do the trick, but they haven't been discovered yet! So it could be said that gravity is mystical. I like to compare this lack of understanding to the task of watching grass grow. (This also works for evolution.) Every day I look but at no time do I ever see the grass growing, yet after a while I know it has grown. It seems that it always grows when I'm not looking! By the same token we see the results of complexity, but we do not yet see the inner workings of the process. We may never see the process, but through complexity science we may yet understand it.
Rating:
Summary: A fine SECOND book on Complexity
Review: The scope of complexity science is vast, encompassing many disciplines. This book focuses on how the new idea of complexity relates to biology by discussing the idea with many leading biologists of the day. Other reviewers were put off by the book's lack of definition of what complexity is, and the lack of resolution as to what terms such as "edge of chaos" mean. But that is exactly the point. These terms do not have clear definition today. Complexity is a very immature field, frequently pursued at the visceral level. It is hard to define what it *is*, but frequently easy to identify it where it exists. I can understand the other reviewers' concerns with the lack of definition, and can only suggest that because of the narrower focus (biology), this is an appropriate second book on complexity. As a second book, narrowly focused on the question of complexity in biology, it is outstanding. Specifically, the question is one of how self-organization (complexity) relates to evolution and what this means for natural selection. Complexity is frequently talked up as the unifier of the sciences. Lewin takes a balanced approach, taking the time to talk to complexity theorists and understand their ideas, then talking to mainstream biologists to see how the ideas relate. His conclusion shows no inherent bias. Where other books on complexity show extreme (perhaps undue) enthusiasm, Roger Lewin's concusion is decidedly "wait and see". I found his insights to be on target and relevant. I mentioned that this is a good second book. For an introduction to complexity, read John Holland's "Hidden Order". For a history of the Santa Fe Institute and some of the personalities there, read Mitchell Waldrop's "Complexity". Either or both of these would serve as an adequate introduction to this book.
Rating:
Summary: A fine SECOND book on Complexity
Review: The scope of complexity science is vast, encompassing many disciplines. This book focuses on how the new idea of complexity relates to biology by discussing the idea with many leading biologists of the day. Other reviewers were put off by the book's lack of definition of what complexity is, and the lack of resolution as to what terms such as "edge of chaos" mean. But that is exactly the point. These terms do not have clear definition today. Complexity is a very immature field, frequently pursued at the visceral level. It is hard to define what it *is*, but frequently easy to identify it where it exists. I can understand the other reviewers' concerns with the lack of definition, and can only suggest that because of the narrower focus (biology), this is an appropriate second book on complexity. As a second book, narrowly focused on the question of complexity in biology, it is outstanding. Specifically, the question is one of how self-organization (complexity) relates to evolution and what this means for natural selection. Complexity is frequently talked up as the unifier of the sciences. Lewin takes a balanced approach, taking the time to talk to complexity theorists and understand their ideas, then talking to mainstream biologists to see how the ideas relate. His conclusion shows no inherent bias. Where other books on complexity show extreme (perhaps undue) enthusiasm, Roger Lewin's concusion is decidedly "wait and see". I found his insights to be on target and relevant. I mentioned that this is a good second book. For an introduction to complexity, read John Holland's "Hidden Order". For a history of the Santa Fe Institute and some of the personalities there, read Mitchell Waldrop's "Complexity". Either or both of these would serve as an adequate introduction to this book.
<< 1 >>
|
