Structure and Chaos

I'm still pursuing the line of thought of the previous two entries, but in line with my thesis, it is becoming more random and disjointed. The thesis -roughly- is that tight structures are elaborated into looser structures, which is the origin of change. In physical terms, at the atomic and molecular levels structures are rigid or tight. Compounds have rigid structures but they have the property of being able to combine with other compounds (and elements) to form different compounds, also having rigid structures. Larger groupings of matter are progressively less tightly structured, and relations between them very loosely structured, if at all. This applies particularly to living organisms including humans.

At this point I'd like to clarify what I mean by structure. So far I've been thinking mainly in terms of the structure of material objects, overlooking the fact that 'structure' is a human concept, applied to observed properties of things. As an abstraction, it can be applied more widely, to music, poetry, paintings, society, society, logic, mathematics, language, thought. These have material underpinnings, but their structure is not identical with their material composition.

To recap a little, I think I mentioned the animal genotype as being typical of somewhat loose structures. Composed of highly complex parts with well-defined structure, it is capable of variation from one individual to another, and from one generation to another over time. The genotype specifies the physical characteristics of an individual, but each one is not perfect and there are variations among offspring. Environment can affect the development of individuals, and genetic mutations can lead to overall changes or adaptations over time. Relations between individuals in their environment are structurally determined only to the extent that the environment imposes constraints and affords opportunities, eg. for food, shelter and reproduction.

I think that the appearance of novelty, brought about by human action, can be used as an argument for free will, of a sort worth having, to paraphrase Daniel Dennett. It entails having a disposition to novelty and the drive to create it. Humans have a will, on the one hand, and the freedom to execute it, on the other, within structural configurations loose enough to permit it.

Humans have a yen for freedom and novelty, but they also have a desire for order, structure. This is clearly seen in the organisation of society, from physical infrastructure to law, education, politics, social customs generally, the arts, communication and religion. We like the new, as long as it is something like the old, only different. But we are creatures of habit, comfortable with routines as log as they are not too tedious.

Proceedings in neuroscience invariably point to the dependence of mind on brain structures. To some scientists they are one and the same, or at least 'mind is what the brain does'. Although it seems as if the mind is something over and above the body and brain, the idea that it is a separate, different kind of thing is heavily resisted these days, a position I agree with. The mind is a function of the brain, which is situated in the body, which is situated in the world. Being-in-the-world is what the embedded mind experiences. Direct experience is a result of direct contact with worldly surroundings, but there is also indirect experience in the form of thoughts, imaginings, dreams and other mental activity. These are able to float free from the structures that support them, though to what extent I'm not sure anyone knows completely, especially in terms of mental structures or schemas.

Before concluding I shall mention a phenomenon which is only loosely related to structure, namely homeostasis. This is the tendency of systems to return to equilibrium after disturbance. I have previously remarked on equilibrium as a feature of the world and of society, the tendency to return to normal, or try to, eg. after a war or economic crisis. What turned my thoughts to it again was an article I read regarding the ability of blind people to enhance faculties other than sight, in partial compensation. Although reasonably well-known, the phenomenon had not been extensively studied, so the researchers turned to it. Using brain-scanning techniques they discovered that 'people blind from birth can make use of the visual parts of their brain to refine their sensation of sound and touch' . This strikes me as being homeostatic in principle, the brain utilising structures in order to preserve and enhance function, when those areas might, it seems to me, have spun out of control and generated some form of wild eccentricity or insanity.

Finally, a word on the process of creation on the arts. This deserves longer treatment, but I will just observe that whereas practically all art forms were quite highly structured prior to the twentieth century, from the end of the nineteenth on, artists of every stripe began to rebel against the confines of established forms. Whereas structure in the arts, including music and poetry etc. had been changed, it was not abolished altogether as it appeared was happening now. Form cannot be eliminated, but conventional structure can be, and has been, to some extent. In the post-modern era elements of former structure were adopted and incorporated in novel ways.

Creation of artworks involves a search for novelty. The will to create must be free, in order to produce it.