In a rather old paper, Wagenmakers, Farrell and Ratcliff (2005) suggest that it is difficult to introduce Self-Organized Criticality and nonlinear dynamics to explain human behavior. They write: "the absence of a specific model for how self-organized criticality produces the observed behavior makes it very difficult to derive testable predictions. The authors conclude that the proposed paradigm shift is presently unwarranted." See the paper included here or find their paper in this link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404501/pdf/nihms2267.pdf.
However, in a more recent paper, Ramos, Sassi & Piqueira (2011) argue that SOC can be used to predict human behavior. (see http://cbpfindex.cbpf.br/publication_pdfs/RamosSassiPiqueira2010.2010_07_05_11_50_10.pdf).
Therefore, it seems that there are two different opinions, i.e.: (a) SOC cannot be used in the field of human cognition and psychology and general, (b) SOC is useful to predict human behavior. In this regards, perhaps we can also consider that there are special circumstances where human being can experience critical phenomena, for example there are some people who can jump on high fences or walls when they are in danger (for example running from fire or dogs etc). So it seems that in certain circumstances, it is possible to use SOC to explain human behavior.
As the human brain is practically the quintessential self-organizing system, and human behavior an outcome of brain function, it would seem to be trivially true that self-organizing criticality is necessarily characteristic of human cognition. The only way in which it could not be would be if, contrary to the dynamics of virtually all complex systems, the phase space of the human brain or subcomponents thereof contained no critical points. This is intrinsically and obviously unlikely if not clearly false. However, the problem is whether the realization that a complex, self-organizing system has critical points is one thing. The ability to identify these in such a way as to further the psychological & cognitive sciences is another. Unfortunately, there is a distinct lack between our understanding of SOC in general and our ability to predict, explain, or even use standard mathematical formalisms behind descriptions of SOC in e.g., granular physics to do anything meaningful when it comes to human psychology or behavior. In part this is due to the relative simplicity of systems which exhibit SOC. In part it is due to the general lack of necessary mathematical proficiency in the psychological, behavioral, cognitive, neuroscience, and other brain sciences.
I agree with Andrew, and he' s provided a significant answer. Therefore, I would like to move on to a complementary tun, thus:
I have my doubts about the necessity of predictability in science. Scientists do something else quite more difficult and sensitive than just predicting. Scientists are devoted to understanding. Now, when a good or satisfactory undestanding is acheived, then, as a consequence, as a kind of surplus, some predictability can be reached.
SOC is one of the approaches in complexity science. And the joinction between Lorenz and Bak's contributions allows us to safely say that SOC is no so much a predictive rod, as a marvelous way to explaining things otherwise, namely without the need to causality.
A solid research is the one that reaches high or deep understanding as then, only then, some prediction can be proposed...
Dear Andrew, Vesna, Carlos, for your answers. Perhaps part of the question in this regard is: is it possible to use physical model/analogy to describe human behavior? Perhaps Per Bak's sand pile model has advantages, but perhaps it has limitations too.
Dear Victor:
In response to your query, my personal (and naturally biased) opinion is "not yet." Our ability to model complex systems is fairly limited in general, and by "complex" I include the classical pendulum (N=1 body) problem. Maybe we will be better able to quantify human behavior using mathematical models in the future. Certainly, we can identify general trends, characteristics, etc., of human behavior and capture the essence of these using mathematical models. This does not mean books like "The Mathematics of Marriage" actually do so. They don't. Models from granular physics can be applied with deceptive success because much of what is captured is defined by the models used and involves their predictive power to tell us what we already knew, but add just a little mathematical polish.
Like I said, though, biased opinion (so much so I don't believe there is any other kind of opinion).
@Andrew, thank you for your answer. Yes it seems possible to come up with mathematical models of human behavior someday, at least based on some kind of analogy.
@Vesna. Thank you for your file. I will read it soon, but i am no expert in neural network. May i ask a question: is it possible to model the Universe as a brain?
@Carlos, i see that you want to distinguish SOC from causality. I am going to pst another question related to connection between SOC and causality breakdown, but alas i cannot find any paper on this issue. Sl if you have one or two files supporting your idea that SOC means causality breakdown, please kindly let me know. Thanks
@Vesna, thanks for your answer. Is it possible to arrive at a model for universe based on boltzmann brain? Can you give me a link or send me a paper on this issue? Thanks
@Vesna. Thank you for your links, i will take a look at them. Best wishes
@Andrew, Vesna, Carlos. Thank you so much for all your answers. Allow me to upload a file summarizing this discussion for record purpose. Best wishes
My goodness, how elegant! Thank you very much, indeed, dear Victor. I appreciate your pdf summary. You've even a lesson to all of us. See you in these forums in RG.
@Carlos, thank you for your appreciation. btw, with regards to discussion of SOC and causality, do you mean that SOC implies causality breakdown? And if yes, do you have a reference/paper explaining this issue. I can only find a paper discussing this subject, but it only applies in social phenomena, not in natural phenomena. Your comments are welcome. Best wishes
Dear Victor, I thin k so, indeed. More generally, three concepts both imply a replacement of causality and a breakdown of it, namely emergence, SOC, and entanglement.
The best text I know about this post is a wonderful book: this is the link of the book in amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Complex-Systems-Handbook-Science/dp/0444520767
@Carlos, thank you for the reference. I will try to find it. Best wishes
Dear All,
even if this discussion ended 4 years ago, in my opinion it's still very interesting. Please note a contribution about SOC and Autism recently published:
Article Crisis Behavior in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Self-Organiz...
Best,
L
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology