An excursion into the irreducible complexity of the biological world and some of its epistemological and social implications
“We are an excursion. We are not following an arrow,” said Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, biophysicist working in the Department of Philosophy at the University of the Basque Country.
Ruiz-Mirazo’s STIAS project involves writing a monograph on the philosophy of complex systems. It will focus on the irreducible and pervasive complexity of the natural world (the biological world, in particular), and the importance of becoming aware of this intrinsic complexity, in continuous development and evolution if we are to handle the present and future challenges for science and society.
“I aim to present a world view that derives from current scientific knowledge and a particular philosophical interpretation of it, and to draw the implications for us as humans and citizens in society,” he said. “I’m posing questions that bring more questions. Humans are inherently curious about what we are made of and where we are in the context of the universe.”
“I like to use as metaphor the Island of Knowledge,” he said. “The island is the established knowledge and the shore keeps growing, adding questions to the ocean of ignorance. Science is at the shore opening the frontier of knowledge. But where do the Humanities and humans lie?”
Long-term processes of evolution
For his seminar, Ruiz-Mirazo sketched a fascinating journey into the deep biological roots of our nature, adopting a theoretical perspective that proposes ‘autonomy’ and ‘open-ended evolution’ as the main conceptual constructs to capture—and further investigate—the core of all living phenomenology, from its origins, billions of years ago, to the present.
“As Carl Sagan said, ‘we are made of star stuff’,” said Ruiz-Mirazo. “Our carbon atoms are literally the ones formed in supernova explosions. Life couldn’t have developed without several star generations that died in supernovas.”
“The earth formed nearly 5000 million years ago. Soon after (in evolutionary terms) there is evidence of life in the form of different types of microorganisms and it’s another 2000 million years till the origins of eukaryotes, plus some other 800 million years till the origins of multicellular organisms.”
“All microbes are from a single origin,” he continued. “This was originally told by Darwin but only confirmed much later. Despite huge diversity, all life has the same genetic code as well as other signatures, like its cellular nature or the presence of a common set of energy currencies.”
Ruiz-Mirazo highlighted that the dimensions of life were present from the origins. And it was the development of the more-complex eukaryotic cells from the prokaryotic cells about 1.5 billion years ago that heralded one of the most important transitions in the history of life on Earth.
These developments allowed cells to construct higher-order organisms. “We can learn a lot from how eukaryotic cells build multicellular systems,” he said. “Reproduction and differentiation lead to division of labour and functional integration.”
“In the animal domain, the eukaryotic-cell machinery externalised to create tissues that contract – muscles – and transmit messages very quickly – neuron networks – which made a new domain of life possible,” he explained. “Neurons connect different parts of the body through electrical signals, allowing us to respond very rapidly to environmental change, including movement through muscles.”
“Development of the nervous system led to the development of new body plans,” he added. “The nervous system takes control of the development plan. The development of a human baby is under incredibly tight control of the nervous system.”
“So, evolution is about co-operation and different endeavours,” he said. “Complex molecules and complex organisation and dynamics. With autonomy and open-ended evolution giving the potential for indefinite growth.”
“There are multiple layers of irreducible complexity, together with its intrinsic interactive character—autonomy, also when it is understood within the cognitive domain, does not mean independence.”
He explained that autonomy is instead about the ability to relate to the world from within, in other words, “agency” which is expressed both at the cellular level and in multicellular systems.
To illustrate this, he showed the fascinating animation − The Inner Life of the Cell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wGAVxe7cik). “Everything in the video happens in parallel with a very complicated network of underlying chemical reactions. And, on top of that, we have trillions of cells working in cooperation.”
Collective interfaces
In the second part of his intervention, Ruiz-Mirazo highlighted how those basic properties are expressed in the human domain, presenting language and tools as the most important invention on our evolutionary journey connecting us collectively. He explained that language and tools created novel interfaces for communication and interaction facilitating, in turn, the construction of a cognitive, conscious self. Human identity in cognitive terms is collectively constructed through the autonomous behaviour of each individual, enabled by the cellular organisation of its body, and enhanced by social interactions, all within an open-ended process of evolution.
“What makes us human? The development of generative language that one can construct grammatically to be able to communicate with others – no other animal has that. The cumulative development of technology is also human specific – it’s a reflection of our agency potential.”
Bringing this all together, Ruiz-Mirazo shared his reflections on the epistemological implications of such a picture of the natural world, as well as on the global challenges we face.
“Human society has entered an accelerated process of economic growth driven by the expansion of science and technology,” he said. “The biosphere and microbes will stay until the sun explodes, but we are risking our own stability as a species in the ecosystem.”
He believes that a naturalised agent-based evolutionary theory of human knowledge can allow us to understand science as a social activity capable of sophisticated self-correction.
“There is no one recipe to get to the truth. We must accept that scientific constructs have limitations. It’s an ongoing dynamic process of generating partial answers to questions,” he said. “But the critical point is that science can’t keep track in real-time of its own dreadfully complex dynamics, let alone control them.”
He emphasised a few take-home messages: “Science is part of the problem but also essential for the solution. It needs to be complemented with meta controls, and needs a more humble and cautious attitude.”
“Philosophy could do a good job in combining criticism and praise of scientific knowledge in a healthy way, to assist in creating communication channels with society, and to educate new generations in long-term thinking,” he continued.
“A scientifically informed society should be involved in decision-making processes, but this is dangerously far from current political trends and requires strategies and attitudes that are very different from the ones displayed by present political leaders.”
Ruiz-Mirazo advocated a new type of scientific realism involving methodological pluralism, multi-causal and multi-level approaches, together with more committed social engagement in scientific practices and decision-making.
In discussion, he tackled the human illusion of control. “We have to acknowledge our limitations: complexity goes beyond complicatedness, emergent phenomena will keep surprising us,” he said. “It’s a challenge to tell the new generation that this is the case, and that we might go very wrong in our predictions. Not an easy message to transmit.”
He also answered questions on the role of Artificial Intelligence. “AI does not have agency; it’s just making use of the fact that language is open-ended. Human agents do construct new interfaces – AI doesn’t, it exploits the human ones. Intelligence is about the way of relating to the world. AI is not going that way, even if does contribute to the enhancement of our capacities, and will continue doing so. We are far from implementing devices that can construct or transform by themselves the interface to relate of communicate with other agents, us included. For a new type of consciousness to emerge, my guess is that it will be created by nature.”
Michelle Galloway: Part-time media officer at STIAS
Photograph: SCPS Photography