Mechanism and Wholism: A Case of 'ISO' Processes?

• Excitable Fields, K/r, and Brian Goodwin by James Brody, 8/4/97
  
  

Goodwin's ideas are interesting for a number of reasons. Three major ones come to mind. First, Goodwin is seeking to link "mechanistic" and "systems" language (e.g. genes and fields). In both the behavioral and biological sciences there has been, and remains, a tension between these two conceptual poles of thought. I am most aware of this tension in the field of neuroscience (e.g. Edelman's "local" versus "global" modes of processing). In other terms, it is a tension between focusing upon "pieces" and "relations", and certainly ties (in part) into levels of analysis plus their relations. What I think Goodwin and other similarly thinking theorists are doing is to argue that levels of organization are joined by a two-way arrow rather than through more simply conceived models of extreme reductionism or wholism (some say, "holism"). Secondly, Goodwin's model (as Jim notes) brings in both excitatory and inhibitory processes. This is what I have previously referred to as the "center"/"surround" form of modeling. It is important to distinguish between 'geographical' models and 'information space' models when thinking about these things. An information space model does not depend necessarily upon simple localization, but abstracts operations that can be distributed in space (yet still fit the center/surround metaphor). Thirdly, if I read the literature correctly, Goodwin's ideas have received a lot of resistance in part because they can only be dealt with at a level that involves conceptual abstraction (e.g. "fields" may be localized, but they can also be conceived of as distributed). I am reminded of some of Roger Sperry's later writings on "interactionism" which, when taken literally and in too narrow a 'localized' sense, confused and annoyed the neurobehavioral establisment.

I am glad to see Goodwin's ideas introduced here. Perhaps I am overly fond of abstract thought, but I do believe that some of the issues he is grappling with can find echoes in behavioral science and neuroscience, as well as (obviously) the link between developmental and evolutionary biology.

It would be fun to see someone (here, in print) disagree with me - for what do I know?!

• oops - did not address my own title! by John F., 10/11/97
• K/r Equivalent to Excitable Fields? by James Brody, 10/12/97
  • About K/r and Goodwin (Finally!) by James Brody, 10/12/97
• K/r Equivalent to Excitable Fields? by James Brody, 10/12/97