5 ms·

> If you take a look at any biological system that must exist, sustain itself, there is always a control and monitoring system. This may be a sweeping statemen

by sn41 8y ago

> If you take a look at any biological system that must exist, sustain itself, there is always a control and monitoring system. This may be a sweeping statement. We do know of collections of cells, for example, the cells in the heart muscles beat together without a central monitor. Swarms like flocks of birds, schools of fish etc. do not seem to have a hierarchical order. Steven Strogatz has a book called "Sync" related to spontaneous synchronisation. He also has given a Ted talk: https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_strogatz_on_sync/transcript?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_strogatz_on_sync/transcript...

ismail 8y ago
Thanks for the link will take a look. Not familiar with the beating heart example but I do recall the example of the flock of birds. So will analyse that. If I recall correctly the birds are a network, where each one would monitor the ones closest to them and react based on that? Which is monitoring and control. Just at a very micro level. Also note the more appropriate term used above was “recursive” rather than hierarchy. The behaviour of a flock of birds is referred to as a complex adaptive system, with emergent properties. It can be modelled quite accurately as a vsm. Put simply one needs control, monitoring, feedback and information flow to exist. This is needed at every level (hence recursive). Therefore rather than contradict my comment, your post is just a further expansion. A complex adaptive system, can itself be modelled as a vsm.
- ryanmarsh 8y ago
  CAS do form hierarchies, however.
- dpwm 8y ago
  > If I recall correctly the birds are a network, where each one would monitor the ones closest to them and react based on that? This is how Craig Reynolds' Boids model works. [0] However, I recall from word of mouth that if you factor in a reaction time that the model breaks down; though I can't see any references to this phenomena online. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids
wjnc 8y ago
The is some space between always a command and control mechanism and not always a central monitor. There are cells that communicate / coordinate via hormones. So you get coordinated behaviour via stimulus / reponse.
jonathankoren 8y ago
Pigeons flocks have hierarchy.[0] Also, to state the obvious, nonhuman social structures aren't always applicable to human social structures. Very often, the have very limited applicability to human organizations, for the simple reason that they're biologically based. Instead you should turn to history and anthropology, not biology for advice. Sadly, there are very few (if any) examples of long lived leaderless / flat human organizations. Inevitably, a small cadre form an elite core (either through influence (Politics! Gasp!) or force / intimidation (politics by other means! Double gasp!) You can see this with various anarchist organizations, intentional communities such as communes, protest movements, even the tragedy of the commons. [0] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/when-pigeons-flock-whos-command http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/when-pigeons-flock-wh...
- ekianjo 8y ago
  > Instead you should turn to history and anthropology This is equally flawed since this is a field swamped with risks of survival bias in anything you study.
  - KineticLensman 8y ago
    > Sadly, there are very few (if any) examples of long lived leaderless / flat human organizations. I think this point still stands though.
    - sverige 8y ago
      Exactly. There is survival bias precisely because flat organizations have never survived long enough to become the dominant form.
  - kofejnik 8y ago
    it's not survivor bias if you're studying long-term survival
    - rapind 8y ago
blattimwind 8y ago
> the cells in the heart muscles beat together without a central monitor A control/monitoring system isn't required to be centralised, or even different from what is controlled/monitored. E.g. with groups of fish every fish just keeps his distance to other fish, resulting in the well known global as-if-centrally-coordinated behaviour of fish groups. So I think the statement just means that there is some kind of control loop. It doesn't say how it looks.

by sn41 8y ago

ismail 8y ago

Thanks for the link will take a look. Not familiar with the beating heart example but I do recall the example of the flock of birds. So will analyse that. If I recall correctly the birds are a network, where each one would monitor the ones closest to them and react based on that? Which is monitoring and control. Just at a very micro level. Also note the more appropriate term used above was “recursive” rather than hierarchy. The behaviour of a flock of birds is referred to as a complex adaptive system, with emergent properties. It can be modelled quite accurately as a vsm. Put simply one needs control, monitoring, feedback and information flow to exist. This is needed at every level (hence recursive). Therefore rather than contradict my comment, your post is just a further expansion. A complex adaptive system, can itself be modelled as a vsm.

ryanmarsh 8y ago
CAS do form hierarchies, however.
dpwm 8y ago
> If I recall correctly the birds are a network, where each one would monitor the ones closest to them and react based on that? This is how Craig Reynolds' Boids model works. [0] However, I recall from word of mouth that if you factor in a reaction time that the model breaks down; though I can't see any references to this phenomena online. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boids

wjnc 8y ago

The is some space between always a command and control mechanism and not always a central monitor. There are cells that communicate / coordinate via hormones. So you get coordinated behaviour via stimulus / reponse.

jonathankoren 8y ago

Pigeons flocks have hierarchy.[0] Also, to state the obvious, nonhuman social structures aren't always applicable to human social structures. Very often, the have very limited applicability to human organizations, for the simple reason that they're biologically based. Instead you should turn to history and anthropology, not biology for advice. Sadly, there are very few (if any) examples of long lived leaderless / flat human organizations. Inevitably, a small cadre form an elite core (either through influence (Politics! Gasp!) or force / intimidation (politics by other means! Double gasp!) You can see this with various anarchist organizations, intentional communities such as communes, protest movements, even the tragedy of the commons. [0] http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/when-pigeons-flock-whos-command http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2010/04/when-pigeons-flock-wh...

ekianjo 8y ago
> Instead you should turn to history and anthropology This is equally flawed since this is a field swamped with risks of survival bias in anything you study.
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  > Sadly, there are very few (if any) examples of long lived leaderless / flat human organizations. I think this point still stands though.
  - sverige 8y ago
    Exactly. There is survival bias precisely because flat organizations have never survived long enough to become the dominant form.
- kofejnik 8y ago
  it's not survivor bias if you're studying long-term survival
  - rapind 8y ago

blattimwind 8y ago

> the cells in the heart muscles beat together without a central monitor A control/monitoring system isn't required to be centralised, or even different from what is controlled/monitored. E.g. with groups of fish every fish just keeps his distance to other fish, resulting in the well known global as-if-centrally-coordinated behaviour of fish groups. So I think the statement just means that there is some kind of control loop. It doesn't say how it looks.