This is the abstract from my paper which I'll be presenting at the Biosemiotics gathering in Berkeley in June (see http://biosemiotics.life). This is a fascinating group of scientists from all fields. The next wave of educational theory will come from renewed focus on the current state of biology and physics.
At the moment in education, we are stuck with what biology thought in the 1920s - not that it was all wrong, of course - but we certainly know more now. Physics is connected to biology, and our understanding of quantum mechanics and its relation to relativity is particularly important, with some significant work going on there. Of course, the quantum thing is also critically important given that this will underpin the next wave of technology.
I think a renewed scientific focus will help clarify some of the confusion surrounding neuroscience's role in education (neuroscience is biology, after all), and also some of the problems which have crept in with half-baked philosophical speculation (sociomateriality, etc) which has become dogmatic. Speculation should be encouraged. Unfortunately education has a habit of turning speculation into dogma.
At the moment in education, we are stuck with what biology thought in the 1920s - not that it was all wrong, of course - but we certainly know more now. Physics is connected to biology, and our understanding of quantum mechanics and its relation to relativity is particularly important, with some significant work going on there. Of course, the quantum thing is also critically important given that this will underpin the next wave of technology.
I think a renewed scientific focus will help clarify some of the confusion surrounding neuroscience's role in education (neuroscience is biology, after all), and also some of the problems which have crept in with half-baked philosophical speculation (sociomateriality, etc) which has become dogmatic. Speculation should be encouraged. Unfortunately education has a habit of turning speculation into dogma.
Do Cells Sing to Each Other?
Mark William Johnson
David Bohm
considered that:
“in listening to music, one
is directly perceiving an implicate order” (Bohm
2002)
Whilst remaining controversial, the
wide-ranging nature of Bohm’s theory
of implicate and explicate order presents an imaginative opportunity to connect to other
scholarly considerations of music and communication (notably
by Langer (Langer 1990)
and Schutz (Schu¨tz 1951)) and
consider that
Bohm’s insight
might extend to cellular communication
as well as physics. This paper consid-
ers
whether a process
of “directly perceiving an implicate order”
might be a mechanism in cellular
communication, and how such a process might
be artic- ulated with reference to ways of describing musical communication.
Central to Bohm’s
approach is the acknowledgement of multiplicity of de-
scription: what we think
of as single descriptions like “a chair”
or “a message” are, he contends, multiplicities. Fourier analysis
of music reveals
multiplicities which are both synchronic and diachronic, as shown in the spectral
sound image below:
Each synchronic (vertical) level of the sound
spectrum can be considered redundant: overtones add to the richness of the sound,
but the essential function of
a tone is preserved by the context.
Diachronically, melody and harmony describe different aspects of the same thing,
but both synchronic and diachronic
aspects together form a coherence, which in Bohm’s physical theory, he saw as a symmetry.
I suggest a logical
characterisation of this drawing using
McCulloch’s model of perception (McCulloch 1945). In McCulloch’s work, perception is a coherence between multiple excitations of ‘drome’ circuits
which configure each other,
producing a syn-drome.
McCulloch illustrates his idea with a diagram
of the inter-connected circuits where each
dromic excitation can either stimulate or attenuate every other
level. I argue
that this is comparable to the synchronic structure produced in music frequency
analysis. In arguing
this, I suggest that
McCulloch’s dromic diagram can be drawn
with different circuits representing basic categories of music (e.g. rhythm, melody,
harmony, tonality)
Beyond basic categories like this, in music there
are emergent categories as articulations of tonal and thematic structure unfold. In
McCulloch’s diagram, this emergence can be represented with
new dromic cycles
interfering with ex- isting ones.
To explore this logical idea, experiments can be constructed which examine
music for the Shannon
entropy of its different aspects.
Each feature can be treated as an ‘alphabet’ with
an emergent entropy, where
each aspect’s change
in entropy affects every
other aspect. The resonances from McCulloch’s loops
can be re-represented empirically by plotting
the changes in entropy over time from
one description/alphabet to another. In doing so, we can
investigate at what point (and by what mechanism) new alphabets are
introduced, and secondly, by what mechanism do existing recognised aspects disappear. Using
evidence of such
analysis on a variety
of music, I suggest that
new categories emerge
when the relative
entropy between descriptions is coordinated in some way such that
the correlation acquires some new label.
Is cellular
communication like this? Is there a similar
dance between multi- ple redundant descriptions? Musical coordination occurs in a context of aware-
ness of multiple descriptions and
self-awareness of participation in descriptions.
Sometimes multiple descriptions of the environment present ambiguity and un-
certainty.
If awareness of self and
ambiguity is a function of the symmetry between different descriptions of reality
then cellular development might be di-
rected in ways which address resonant
symmetries within and between cells. A
mechanism similar to this has been suggested
by Torday (John S. Torday 2012). Emergent categories in the development of symmetries may then break
apart those symmetries (creating a broken symmetry
in a similar way to Deacon’s autocell (Deacon 2012)), just as a musical development will arrive at a cadence for
something new to take shape.
References
Bohm,
David (2002). Wholeness and the Implicate Order. English. 1
edition.
London ; New York: Routledge. isbn:
978-0-415-28979-5.
Deacon, Terrence
W. (2012). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Mat- ter. English. 1 edition. New
York: W. W. Norton
& Company.
isbn: 978-0- 393-04991-6.
John S. Torday (2012). Evolutionary Biology: Cell-Cell Communication and Complex
Disease. Wiley-Blackwell.
Langer, Sk (1990). Philosophy in a New Key: Study in the Symbolism of Rea- son,
Rite and Art. English. 3rd
Revised edition edition. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press. isbn: 978-0-674-66503-3.
McCulloch, Warren S. (1945). “A heterarchy of values determined by the
topol- ogy of nervous nets”. en. In: The
bulletin of mathematical biophysics 7.2, pp. 89–93.
issn: 0007-4985, 1522-9602. doi: 10 . 1007 / BF02478457. url:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02478457.
Schu¨tz, Alfred (1951).
“MAKING MUSIC
TOGETHER: A
Study in
Social Relationship”. In: Social
Research 1, p. 76. issn: 0037783X.
No comments:
Post a Comment