Monday, April 23, 2007

Bottoms-Up!

The book Emergence, by Steven Johnson, is the latest reading that we have embarked on. For starters, I’d like to say that this is my favorite and the most interesting read we have had this semester, as it makes you think about very complex and deep issues without confusing you too much. Through the introduction and first chapter we have read, the major theme is simply introducing the idea of emergence and giving examples of it. Emergence is “the movement from low-level rules to higher-level sophistication” (18) according to the book.

The book goes over some interesting emergent examples, which really help to show the ideas involved. The first one covered is the slime mold example, in which single-celled organisms act together at times and separately at other times. The question though is how do the cells know when to act in concert? The most logical idea would be that there are “pacemaker cells”, or some sort of hierarchy where certain cells that are in charge “tell” the other cells what to do. However, it turns out that “slime mold aggregation is now recognized as a classic case study in bottom-up behavior” (16). Basically, there aren’t any cells in charge, there are a lot of bottom-level activities that go on which somehow create a more complex activity. The ant colony is another given example, in which the colony has no leader but can still develop complex structures of organization through a bottom-up system. It is a non-intuitive way to build complex systems; by having basic rules act in a way that somehow build into the complex system.

In comparison to today’s world, it can be really difficult to understand how this could happen. Our governments, schools, churches, organizations, and even families are based upon authority figures telling lower-level people what to do, and they often tell other people what to do, and so forth down the line. This type of system is a top-down one, completely the opposite of the way slime mold aggregates. The thing that I find interesting is that the bottom-up systems work so well in some types of situations, like the slime mold or ants, but I seriously don’t think humans can do it. Maybe it’s our human nature, but when thinking of an example, I seemed to link bottom-up behavior to that of communism. It seems like a fantastic idea, but when humans try it, there is a sense of everyone not wanting to work together. Undoubtedly there is always someone that wants more than everyone else or doesn’t hold up his or her end of the bargain, resulting in the failing of the system. Apparently, this doesn’t seem to exist in ant colonies or slime mold cells, or at least it does not affect them so much. I really do not have any sort of explanation for this, and I don’t think that just learning from their systems can change human nature, but it sure would be nice if we could.

When reading, I became a little confused about other ways in which emergent theory and the mathematics involved are part of our daily lives now. It is stated that “in recent years our day-to-day life has become overrun with artificial intelligence” (21), and there are “new forms of emergent software being developed today” (22). I seem to be drawing a blank when trying to think up examples of emergent software using bottom-up systems explicitly. If anyone has an example of this that they could share, it might help me understand better how emergence is so prominent in our daily lives.

6 comments:

Becky said...

I found it interesting that you don't think humans can operate in a bottom-up system. After thinking about this for awhile, I agree with you. Even if I think of societies that are less bueracratic than ours, I still think there is some presence heirchary. I agree that our human nature to want to be on top will inevtibaly get in the way. Maye bottom-up systems are reserved for slime molds and ants.

berinvonrad said...

I agree that humans operate to large extent from a top-down structure. But there are some smaller-scale operations that are important, too. Think of presidential candidates that spend the day of the election going from door to door trying to get people's votes. Or like the Manchester example we discussed in class: no one was designing the city from a top level, but people just happened to build it up in such a way that the lower-class areas were separated from the middle-class areas.

Kate said...

I think that maybe at the start of a community being formed it is a bottom-up system because everyone is doing what they can to get everything started but once there is an increase in population it is way too hard to listen to everyone at once so we elect people to speak for us. So, it starts out as emergence and then switches to the top-down system maybe...

Liz P. said...

I think the bottom-up software Johnson was talking about was games like the Sims or book-recommendation sites. Both start out with a little information, and then grow from there.

Sam said...

Yeah, after our class on Thursday I sort of understood the software idea better, especially through the book recommendation stuff.

As for humans having bottom-up systems, I completely agree that there are examples of them throughout society. I do like the presidential candidate example of building a voting base from the bottom-up. However, I just meant that on the large scale, I don't see any bottom-up systems, only top-down, which is so different from the ant colony where the large scale structure is still bottom-up.

Jon said...

Would grassroots organizations be considered bottom-up systems?

What comes to my mind are the Vietnam War protests, such as the ones that took place here at UW-Madison. Although they were organized, they seemed to me to be the result of individuals' natural inclination to just walk outside, and protest.