_Time_ magazine, which ordinarily gives high credibilty to emerging
fields of study in evolutionary thought - no matter how far-fetched
(cf. two recent editions devoted to evolutionary psychology) had a
surprisingly skeptical if not down right cynical review of
self-organization theories:
"But more recent, more careful analysis suggests that even a mildly
impressive living molecule is quite unlikely to form randomly.
Then where did it come from? This is one of the questions that
drive an emerging interdiscipinary field known as 'complexity'....
One if complexity's main buzz words is 'self-organization.' Drab,
lifeless physical systems, such as air and water, faced with increasing
disruption, sometimes grow more structured. Air becomes more turbulent
until it finally turns into whirlwinds, tornadoes, hurricanes. Water
molecules heated from below grow wilder in their gyrations until they
finally snap into a sweeping circular motion known as a convection cell.
The Russian-born Belgian chemist Ilya Prigogine, a Nobel laureate,
sees a broad tendency for physical systems that are driven away from
stability to regain it at a higher level of organization.
A number of complexity theorists think self-organization is so basic
a principle as to account for the origin of life. They have sketched
out 'autocatalytic' scenarios, animated them with computer simulations,
published papers. 'If I'm right.' says one of them, Stuart Kauffman
of the University of Pennsylvania medical school, 'the probability
of life is very much higher than anybody thought.
That's a big if. The field of complexity is considered, at best,
inchoate but fruitful and, at worst, inchoate and sterile. The
field's epicenter, a fledgling think tank called the Santa Fe Institute,
has a suspiciously trendy locale; the term self-organization crops up
with suspicious frequency in new-age circles; and suspiciously,
Kauffman and Prigogine have reputations for hawking their wares
aggressively.
But the field is also populated by, and taken seriously by, some people
who aren't viewed with suspicion. Various scientists are pondering
the prospect that a basic physical law lies waiting to be discovered,
a law defining the circumstances under which systems infused with
energy become more complexly structured. This law would carve out
local exceptions to the general tendency of things to become more
chaotic and bland - higher in 'entropy' - as dictated by the famously
depressing second law of thermodynamics. Charles H. Bennett, of IBM's
Thomas J. Watson Research Center, who has deeply shaped the modern
understanding of the second law, suspects there is indeed a law that
if known would make life's origin less baffling. Such a law, he has
said, would play a role 'formerly assigned to God.'"
_Time_ magazine Dec. 28, 1992 "What Does Science Tell Us About God?"
pp 40,42
So it would appear as though those who believe in the role of chaos
and complexity theory to explain apparant design in nature are banking
their hopes on some, as yet, undiscovered law of physics. I may be
wrong, but after having witnessed, first hand, the dismal performance of
chaos theory in unlocking the secrets of brain waves, as some hoped it
would, I am doubtful that 'local exceptions' to well established laws
will pan out. Perhaps someday it will. But until then, isn't it
placing the cart before the horse to present the implications of
these naturalistic philosophies to the society in the name of science
as though such laws are in fact established?
-jpt
As a foot-note, I should add that chaos theory in EEG research hasn't
been a total bust. Studying the boundary between chaos and order might
give useful insights in the normal/seizure EEG boundary as well. But
initial expectations of chaos in EEG have been significantly downsized.
--John P. Turnbull (jpt@ccfadm.eeg.ccf.org)Cleveland Clinic FoundationDept. of Neurology, Section of Neurological ComputingM52-119500 Euclid Ave.Cleveland Ohio 44195Telephone (216) 444-8041; FAX (216) 444-9401