Understand Understanding

We have to point out that there is still a very important gap in our understanding of the
phenomenon of life in spite of the fact that we still do not have a theory to a theory of life,
what life is and how we are made to understand, and the detailed information we have
acquired about the mechanism of life in recent years. What exactly do we mean by the term
"understand"? While we use it for the vast majority of our casual questions, it seems
unnecessary to explain this discourse. The meaning is already obvious. But when it is used
for the life question, the business becomes complicated. What we mean by "understanding"
goes to the heart and even beyond the scientific method and forces us to at least briefly
address some basic philosophical questions that have kept us busy for over 2000 years.
In the world of science, we try to understand the phenomena we see around us using the
"scientific method". As this method is well known, we will only refer to the aspects of our
analysis here. At the center of the scientific method is the logic of conducting "induction
process". The roots of the induction process extend back to the ancient Greek philosophy,
but Francis Bacon is the architect of the modern scientific revolution that has brought it to
scientific importance with its formal definition. All of this may seem like a very formal and
narrow environment. However, the essence of methodology is actually very simple. It is so
simple that even young children understand it with their perceptions and apply it (without
consciousness). As a matter of fact, in all the details of scientific efforts, I can say that there
is nothing more than the successful application of the induction method when trimmed from
jerseys and jerseys. Successful implementation of the induction method is also the basis for
what we call "understanding".
Intuition involves the conclusion of general conclusions from a series of facts obtained by
reasoning, observation, or experiment, which may also try to identify patterns with a
somewhat diminutive expression. Let's consider a very simple example: the falling of apples.
Indeed, without exception, all the apples fall, and therefore a general rule of nature can be
proposed: "The apples fall." But even those with the least ability to observe have noticed
that not only apples are falling, but all material objects exhibit the same falling property. In
that case, the limited "apples fall" rule can be expanded to the rule that "all objects fall";
although the behavior of some objects, such as hot air balloons, needs to be described in
more detail in such a way as to explain these extraordinary exceptions.
The fallen objects are so obvious that even a small child is able to apply the induction
method at a basic level while doing so. When a child's hand is dropped by hand, the child
"realizes" that this special fall event applies the general rule of "falling objects" before too
soon. So even young children intuitively apply induction principles to better understand and
adapt to the world around them, without knowledge of inductive or scientific methods.
British poet and historian Thomas Macaulay said that 150 years ago:
The induction method has been practiced by every human being since the beginning of the
world. The method is still practiced by the most ignorant idiot, the most idiotic student, even
the child on the tongue. This method leads to the result that the fool can not harvest wheat
without barley. By this method the student learns that the best time to catch the trout is a
cloudy day. And probably the baby also waited indefinitely for her to come from her mother
or her milkpan, not her father.
In fact, all beings with consciousness, whether they are aware or not, routinely apply this
method with a process in which evolution is transcending all of us. Yes, the cute dog in your
home routinely implements the induction method, even if it is not familiar with Bacon's
thesis or, more generally, epistemology. You want proof? Just watch your reaction when you
start opening your favorite dog food consortium. He understands that he is about to be given
food on the basis of the pattern he learns over time. It is the compilation of experiential
knowledge gained by evolution, which provides the ability to respond to the conscious
beings in a way that will benefit them from the outside world, and the knowledge of pattern
recognition in this compiled knowledge. Your dog a child aged two years and a scienti 2/6
his laboratory practice the same inductive methodology. The only difference is the degree of
complexity in the recognized patterns.
As mentioned above, young children are aware of the "objects fall" rule. But a much more
comprehensive pattern requires a genius like Isaac Newton to realize the law of gravity,
which describes the behavior of falling apples to the orbits of the celestial bodies, such as
the moon and the earth, in a precise mathematical term that describes the interactions of
physical objects. So, if we say we understand why the apples fell and why the moon was
wrapped around the earth, this is because both special events must represent a more
general pattern of the behavior of all physical objects. But this means that there is no
absolute and deep understanding of why the apples are falling. Gravity is a general name
given only to the falling apple phenomenon.
In the final analysis, all the scientific explanations are inductive. Identification of the
patterns and evaluation of the specifics in general. The broader the generalization, the
greater the experimental observations that generalism is based on, the greater the
predictive power and the greater the overallity itself. If the basics are to be reduced, modem
physics is nothing more: to look for more and more general patterns underlying the
workings of the universe, to move to a wider perspective. Indeed, Einstein's special and
general relativistic theories did well: to develop and generalize the more limited Newtonian
pattern. Einstein advanced Newtonian accountability by placing Newton's gravitational force
in a broader frame of reference with relativity.
According to Einstein, gravitation is nothing more than the natural movement of objects
within a four-dimensional space-time with a curved structure, and this definition provides a
more general basis for understanding a wide range of physical phenomena, including the
behavior of falling apples. Physicists, of course, are not left behind. They try to expand the
generalization with more complex formulations such as string theory and Mukrami, and they
are heading towards the final pattern, the final pattern, which they call "the theory of
everything." Of course, not only the science, but also the various fields of philosophy, is of
course a question of whether a final picture can be uncovered. However, it is a question that
transcends the scope of the position with its very interesting in itself.
The role of mathematics in the creation of patterns is crucial. The ability to be quantitatively
expressed by the language of the pattern of mathematics greatly increases the general
power of foresight, and thus the benefit it provides. Nobel Prize-winning physicist Richard
Feynman once said that the validity of quantum theories is comparable to a level of accuracy
that the width of the North American continent is astonishing as much as the thickness of
hair. A worthy pattern! While such predictive capabilities allow mathematics to play a
fundamental role in pattern formulation, it does not mean that the qualities and benefits of
qualitative patterns can be overlooked. Let us not forget the revolutionary effect of these
ideas, which is a totally qualitative formulation of Darwin's natural selection and common
ancestor ideas, but which even today shapes man's self-view to a great extent. If it will
recall the recollection attributed to Einstein: Everything that is important can not be counted
and everything that can be counted is not important.
We used the term "pattern" to describe what the induction method is looking for. Scientists
use other terms that vary according to the degree of verification of patterns such as
hypothesis, theory, law. Newton's laws of gravitation, the numerous examples of apples and
other objects falling, and the regularity of the sun every day are undeniably a law. However,
the term "pattern" has an advantage due to the ambiguity it contains. Contrary to the terms
"law" and "theory" that create the sense of absolute truth, the "pattern" is smoother, more
flexible, less engaging, less precise, more playable. Even Newton's laws on gravitation and
motion had to be subject to revision after Einstein's revolutionary explanations. Each
hypothesis,
When these patterns, rules, laws, generalizations, or whatever the reason lies behind them,
science can not answer such questions and does not seem to be able to give them. Despite
the widespread belief that natural laws are explanations of natural phenomena, Ludwig
Wittgenstein, the great philosopher of the twentieth century, said in his famous Tractatus
(Latin "thesis") that: "All of the modem understanding of the universe is based on the
misconception that natural laws explain natural phenomena "There is no fundamental
explanation for any phenomenon, and the best thing we can do is to say that it is a
statement. We can say that patterns are the links between the underlying reality and our
understanding of that reality. The nature of these patterns underlying the underlying
phenomena is a fascinating question in itself, beyond the strict boundaries of the scientific
field, and therefore outside the boundaries of the position. If the promise is to give
Wittgenstein again: "Man must know how to silence a topic he can not speak."
In the light of the above, it can be concluded that the meaning of the description is graded,
since pattern recognition is not always accurate. Pattern recognition is, to some extent, the
minister's opinion. Just as Nobel Prize-winning physicist Steven Weinberg has pointed out,
an effective way to understand whether a picture is illuminating is to see if his colleagues
triggered the "Aha!" Reaction. However, it is clear that the nature of the more basic science,
physics, is quite different from the process of operation in biology, which focuses on the
examination of intrinsically complex systems. Since generalizations in physics are
meticulously quantified and explained in the language of mathematics, exceptions are not to
be forbidden and require that the rule be reformulated. Biologically, generics are 3/6
described and are considered normal beyond the rule of exceptions. As a result, it should be
emphasized that whatever the study area, the same set of observations can sometimes be
interpreted in different ways and thus lead to the recognition of different patterns.
This is particularly the case when the observed pattern is not absolute, it is statistically as
usual in social sciences, or when the pattern is highly quantitative. For this reason,
historians often resort to different models to understand a set of events, since a sequence of
historical events can be arranged in multiple patterns. The abundance of writings on the
causes of the First World War exemplifies how a sequence of historical events without
secrets can be understood and interpreted in different ways. Patterns do not need to exclude
each other. Although the descriptions are quite different, a theoretical physicist with a 2-
year-old child has the same understanding of Elman's understanding of causes of decline.
Both are aware of the more general pattern of Elman's fall, but the more physicists see is a
broader and measurable pattern. But the child's simple "falling body" is set enough to help
him in his daily life. Beyond the simple rule of "falling objects" about the behavior of the
madden, there is little more to the Newton's gravitation law and more detailed explanations
of Einstein's relativity theories, if the young child does not have an urgent plan of sending a
satellite or going out on space travel. In fact, it is more likely that the physicist, who is about
to begin a mountain climb, is either twisted to help him in his adventure, or resort to the rule
of "objects fall" instead of special and general relativistic theories. but it is both a broader
and measurable pattern that the physicist sees. But the child's simple "falling body" is set
enough to help him in his daily life. Beyond the simple rule of "falling objects" about the
behavior of the madden, there is little more to the Newton's gravitation law and more
detailed explanations of Einstein's relativity theories, if the young child does not have an
urgent plan of sending a satellite or going out on space travel. In fact, it is more likely that
the physicist, who is about to start a mountain climb, is either twisted in string or "resorted
to" objects instead of special and general relativity theories to help him in his adventure. but
it is both a broader and measurable pattern that the physicist sees. But the child's simple
"falling body" is set enough to help him in his daily life. Beyond the simple rule of "falling
objects" about the behavior of the madden, there is little more to the Newton's gravitation
law and more detailed explanations of Einstein's relativity theories, if the young child does
not have an urgent plan of sending a satellite or going out on space travel. In fact, it is more
likely that the physicist, who is about to start a mountain climb, is either twisted in string or
"resorted to" objects instead of special and general relativity theories to help him in his
adventure. Beyond the simple rule of "falling objects" about the behavior of the madden,
there is little more to the Newton's gravitation law and more detailed explanations of
Einstein's relativity theories, if the young child does not have an urgent plan of sending a
satellite or going out on space travel. In fact, it is more likely that the physicist, who is about
to start a mountain climb, is either twisted in string or "resorted to" objects instead of
special and general relativity theories to help him in his adventure. Beyond the simple rule of
"falling objects" about the behavior of the madden, there is little more to the Newton's
gravitation law and more detailed explanations of Einstein's relativity theories, if the young
child does not have an urgent plan of sending a satellite or going out on space travel. In fact,
it is more likely that the physicist, who is about to start a mountain climb, is either twisted in
string or "resorted to" objects instead of special and general relativity theories to help him in
his adventure.
In summary, if a system can be represented in more than one way, the answer to the
question of which is better may depend on how it is applied. Whatever Works, which is the
name of Woody Allen's 2009 production film, it reflects the essence of the matter. In the
final analysis, none of the efforts to find an order in our theories, laws, models, hypotheses,
the patterned universes of whatever the name implies, can not fully capture the reality of
nature. The patterns we uncover are only reflections of this reality, some better, some
worse. Their recognition gives us a sense of order in the complex world we find ourselves in.
Our previous review will now help me address a central issue of the quest for biological
understanding: totalitarianism versus reductionism.
Reductionism, wholeness?
We have already pointed out that the method of induction, that is, the search for
generalizations, takes place at the center of all scientific understanding of the definition of
patterns. But it has been seen that the way in which inductive thinking is considered to be
particularly beneficial is called a reduction. In fact, the notion of reduction can be further
elaborated and divided into the lower bifurcations that science philosophers have begun to
explore in recent years; but these more detailed views do not interest us here. The
downscaling approach is simple: "The whole can be understood from the interaction of the
parts that make up it." For example, if you want to know how a clock works, divide it into
pieces (teeth, springs, etc.) and observe how they work together to provide functional
integrity. Reducing thought in one way or another,
In the face of the downgrading viewpoint, there is a newer dated totalitarian thought
current which can be summarized by the words "The whole is more than the sum of the
parts". Totality suggests that in complex systems, unexpected features may arise which can
not be understood by examining individual parts of the system (these are features observed
at higher and more complex levels that are not observed at lower levels). This approach has
become quite popular in recent years because even so-called "simple" systems h 4/6
extraordinary complexity, and a new branch of biology has led to the emergence of system
biology. In current Woese's biological systems,
Which system is better to search for biological problems in this case? Reductionism,
wholeness? The answer depends on whom you ask. Jacques Monod, 10 "This is a ridiculous
and false vision that shows only how thoroughly the scientific method of integrals and
analysis misinterprets its role in the scientific method", contemptuous of holism (and its
followers). The complexity surrounding the conflict between reductionism and wholeness
with respect to biological systems rests upon the very oldness and is apparent in the records
of the conference "Biological Reduction Problem", which was attended by several leading
biologists and philosophers, including Peter Medawar, Jacques Monod and Kari Popper, built
in the town of Bellagio in Italy in September 1972.
Sometimes I feel a deja vu moving around the limits of intellectual infertility.
"Reductionism"; "Anti-reductionism"; "Beyond reductionism"; "Wholeness" ... This topic,
which goes back to the very beginning, comes up again and again with different clothes and
unfailing regularity in biology; The feeling of infertility is also due to the fact that it does not
seem to be clear yet.
Although it has been about forty years since the conference, there is not much change.
Reductionism and wholeness in biology still seem controversial. A polemical article bearing
the sign of the Noble Noble and keeping it in line with the whole also refers to the same
dilemmas; but Noble shows examples of modern system biology. Cari Woese, who joined the
camp of all-roundness, expresses a simpler duel:
Today, biology is at a crossroads. The molecular paradigm, which has successfully managed
the field in much of the twentieth century, is no longer a reliable guide. His vision has now
filled the molecular paradigm that has come true. So if biology is to make a choice now: Will
we choose the relaxed one and continue to go beyond the molecular biology, or will we look
for a new and inspiring vision that responds to important questions that the biologist can not
come up with for a more energetic choice over the biennial biology of the living world, ? The
first way, though quite efficient, will inevitably turn the biology into an engineering field. In
the second way, the biology promises a more basic, physics-transformed logic that explores
and identifies the nature of reality in the arm.
Indeed, powerful and provocative words. However, in a harsh criticism of his recent
inclination toward holism, Nobel Prize-winning biologist Sydney Brenner wrote: "This new
system claims that it can solve the problem of biology biology; but I would say that this
approach will fail because it is an inverse problem that can not be solved to arrive at the
functional models from the behavior of a complex system. "
Despite having a dangerous uncertainty, this philosophical lion dives briefly. I will also
mention a few words about the effect of this distressing philosophical division and the
division on our goal of better understanding living systems. At least in the context of life, I
think that the division of redistributive whole is very much semantically meaningful, and
when it goes deeper, it can be thought of as a more subtle form of redistribution.
At the expense of much simplification of the subject, from a scientific methodological point
of view, we can say that the most useful application of the reducer philosophy is the socalled
"hierarchical reduction". Accordingly, phenomena at a hierarchical level can be
explained using concepts taken from the lower level. Steven Weinberg recently expressed
this in a concise phrase: "The explanatory arrows always show the downside." For example,
social behavior refers to the behavior of individual organisms, the behavior of organisms to
the behavior of cells, the behavior of cells to biochemical cycles and biochemical cycles to
molecular structure and reaction tendency , and it goes so far as to the atomic core particles.
Hierarchical reduction, tries to gradually establish the meaning; the phenomena at each
level are explained by a conceptual framework linked to a lower stage. Much of the dazzling
progress that has been witnessed in physical sciences since the seventeenth century can be
attributed to the successful application of this methodology. Biological sciences have
become especially abundant in the reducer crop. All of the tremendous advances recorded in
our understanding of biological processes such as DNA replication, protein synthesis, and
metabolic cycles have all been achieved through the reducible methodology. There is no
doubt that molecular biology reveals the molecular processes of cell processes at the most
molecular level is a perfect example of reductionism. Much of the dazzling progress that has
been witnessed in physical sciences since the seventeenth century can be attributed to the
successful application of this methodology. Biological sciences have become especially
abundant in the reducer crop. All of the tremendous advances recorded in our understanding
of biological processes such as DNA replication, protein synthesis, and metabolic cycles have
all been achieved through the reducible methodology. There is no doubt that molecular
biology reveals the molecular processes of cell processes at the most molecular level is a
perfect example of reductionism. Much of the dazzling progress that has been witnessed in
physical sciences since the seventeenth century can be attributed to the successful
application of this methodology. Biological sciences have become especially abundant in the
reducer crop. All of the tremendous advances recorded in our understanding of biological
processes such as DNA replication, protein synthesis, and metabolic cycles have all been
achieved through the reducible methodology. There is no doubt that molecular biology
reveals the molecular processes of cell processes at the most molecular level is a perfect
example of reductionism. protein synthesis, metabolic cycles, all of the trem 5/6
advances recorded in our understanding of biological processes have been achieved through
the reducible methodology. There is no doubt that molecular biology reveals the molecular
processes of cell processes at the most molecular level is a perfect example of reductionism.
protein synthesis, metabolic cycles, all of the tremendous advances recorded in our
understanding of biological processes have been achieved through the reducible
methodology. There is no doubt that molecular biology reveals the molecular processes of
cell processes at the most molecular level is a perfect example of reductionism.
But the tremendous complexity of biological systems makes it difficult to implement a
reductionist methodology, and it is this difficulty that is responsible for all-round approaches
to biological systems that have risen over the past 20-30 years. The whole opinion derives
from the system theory based on the idea that persuasion power emerges as systemic
relations that produce new and unpredictable features in complex systems. In this case,
which of the two opposing views will we honor if Weinberg's reminiscence of summarizing
"Descriptive arrows will always show downward" and June Goodfield's desperate
complaints? And what are the possible consequences of this fundamental disagreement
about our efforts to understand life?
The criticisms directed at the reductionist approach are largely due to the excessive
expressions of reduction. One example of this is Francis Crick's statement, "The ultimate
goal of modem current in biology is to explain the whole of biology in terms of physics and
chemistry." Such claims that do not seem realistic for the near future continue to remain the
ultimate goal, just as the "ultimate goal" of a person is to explain all chemical phenomena by
solving Schrödinger's famous wave equation. In this sense, a comprehensive critique of
reductionism is unfounded, given the limitations of its nature. On the contrary, the idea that
a more moderate reductionist approach can not cope with emergent properties in a complex
system at all is not true;
For a simple example, consider the physical properties of the intense states (term used for
solids and liquids) of the material we have examined before. In intense situations, several
new properties arise that are not present at the single molecule level. The dense state can be
solid or liquid, electrically conductive or insulative, bright or matte. A single molecule does
not have any of these intense state properties. A single molecule is neither solid nor liquid;
neither brilliant nor matte. Despite the fact that these collective properties are not at the
molecular level, we understand these intensive state properties from the electronic
properties of individual molecules. Thus, the properties of individual molecules (molecular
weight, electric charge, etc.) in which molecular hydrogen is a solid at room temperature,
water is liquid, and table salt is solid. ) and by looking at the forces acting between these
molecules depending on their properties in these materials. Likewise, we can predict the
conductivity in a dense state by passing a single isolated molecule through a certain
theoretical analysis.
The point is that physics and chemistry are filled with such reduc- toral analyzes that enable
understanding of the bases of new features emerging in certain conditions. The usual
objection in the way that some properties can not be understood by reduction because they
appear on certain conditions is not true; but it does not mean that every new feature that
emerges later can be explained by reduction. As a methodology, discounting has some
limitations as it is in every methodology. Complex systems can not always be easily reduced
to their parts. Sometimes unexpected features may arise and, in fact, it does. In such cases,
it can be said that a holistic approach is needed. But a more in-depth assessment of the
whole of the opinion reveals that the anti-reduction claim is somewhat misrepresented. The
problem is largely due to the meaning of the term "whole". If it is desired to create the
impression that the whole system is a whole and that it is avoided to shred it, it is not the
case at all. The system approach breaks down the complex whole as the reducer approach
does; but explores the complex nature of the interactions within the system more
realistically. The whole view accepts that in addition to "top-down causality" from the lower
hierarchies to the upper ones, "top-down causality" in which higher-level phenomena affects
lower-level actions. If it is desired to create the impression that the whole system is a whole
and that it is avoided to shred it, it is not the case at all. The system approach breaks down
the complex whole as the reducer approach does; but explores the complex nature of the
interactions within the system more realistically. The whole view accepts that in addition to
"top-down causality" from the lower hierarchies to the upper ones, "top-down causality" in
which higher-level phenomena affects lower-level actions. If it is desired to create the
impression that the whole system is a whole and that it is avoided to shred it, it is not the
case at all. The system approach breaks down the complex whole as the reducer approach
does; but explores the complex nature of the interactions within the system more
realistically. The whole view accepts that in addition to "top-down causality" from the lower
hierarchies to the upper ones, "top-down causality" in which higher-level phenomena affects
lower-level actions. but explores the complex nature of the interactions within the system
more realistically. The whole view accepts that in addition to "top-down causality" from the
lower hierarchies to the upper ones, "top-down causality" in which higher-level phenomena
affects lower-level actions. but explores the complex nature of the interactions within the
system more realistically. The whole view accepts that in addition to "top-down causality"
from the lower hierarchies to the upper ones, "top-down causality" in which higher-level
phenomena affects lower-level ac 6/6
Such feedback effects can lead to the appearance of unexpected unexpected features that
are not easily foreseeable and a simple reducer analytic. Nevertheless, it seems that the
totality of the reducerist philosophy is at the center of it. When the complexity of a biological
system is addressed by a holistic system approach, the complex system is reduced to simpler
elements, but more intense emphasis is placed on the nature of the complex interactions
between these elements. In other words, a holistic approach is a more sophisticated form of
reduction, which acknowledges that cause-effect relations in a system can be more complex
than a simple subordinate-to-causal chain implies. In the words of the British biologist Athel
Comish-Bowden:
The classical reductive approach in science can be understood as the removal of the
functioning of an entire system from the properties of its parts; but now we have to learn to
understand the movements from the parts.
It is difficult to walk around reductionism as an explanatory tool in science, because
reduction is a fundamental means of achieving a scientific understanding of something.
Despite the hopeful pursuits that have been handed down for decades for a methodology
that is non-reducing and even anti-reduction, this effort does not seem to give a fruit that
can be eaten. Totality in contrast to name can be thought of as a reductionist detailing; a
detail that can of course be valuable, but ultimately a detail. Reduction by various species
and subspecies has been and remains the most important conceptual tool for scientific work,
and it is likely to remain so.
If the question "What is life?" Can be answered satisfactorily, I think that this is basically a
reductionist approach; researching the bonds underlying chemistry and biology, and
revealing the process responsible for biological complexation. The final distinction between
living and inanimate is to be reduced to the differences in materials in the two worlds, and in
particular to the mutual interaction and reactions of these mate