SECOND ANNUAL LUDWIG VON BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE’ by James G . Miller President, University of Louisville
This is the second Ludwig von Bertalanffy Memorial Lecture, delivered at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the Society for General Systems Research at New York City. cn3
L
von Bertalanffy was born near Vienna, Austria, in 1901. He died in 1972. A biochemist, he held professorships a t the Universities of Vienna, Ottawa, Alberta, and the State University of New York a t Buffalo. I first met him in 1949 and saw him and his wife on numerous occasions thereafter, in Chicago, in Ottawa, at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Palo Alto, in Ann Arbor, in Boston, and, after the founding of the Society for General Systems Research, in which he was instrumental, at various of its meetings. On more than one occasion I shared a platform with him. At a meeting of the General Systems Division of the American Psychiatric Association he, Buckminster Fuller, and I, among others, were discussants. In the 1920s, von Bertalanffy proposed an “organismic” theory of life to resolve the mechanism-vitalism controversy that divided biologists of the time. This view states that the phenomena of life cannot be resolved into elementary units but depend upon the interactions among components. The whole of any living being has properties not present in its parts, derived from their arrangement in the organized system. In his book Problems of Life (Bertalanffy, 1952, 20), first published in 1949 as Das Biologische Weltbild, he states this point of view:
It is not only necessary to carry out analysis in order to know as much as possible about the individual components, but it is equally necessary to know the laws of organization that unite these parts and partial processes and are just the characteristic of vital phenomena. Herein lies the essential and original object of biology. This biological order is specific and surpasses the laws applying in the inanimate world, but we can progressively approach it with continued research. It calls for investigation a t all levels: at the level of physicochemical units, processes, and systems; at the biological level of the cell and multicellular organism; a t the level of supraindividual units of life. At each of these levels we see new properties and new laws. Biological order is, in wide measure, of a dynamic nature. . . . ”
UDWIG
KEY WORDS:Bertalanffy memorial lecture, general living systems theory, critical subsystems, shred out, channel and net. ‘Reprinted with permission from Systems Thinking and the Quality o f l i f e . Washington, D.C.: Society, for General Systems Research, 1975, pp. 8-16.
Von Bertalanffy is credited with originating general systems theory. He described it as a formal logico-mathematical field, devoted to the formulation and derivation of principles that hold for systems in general. The same formal models have been found to apply in different scientific disciplines. The general expression of the law of mass action, for example, has been used to analyze demographic problems and also the relationships of organisms in an environment (Bertalanffy, 1951). This isomorphy is based upon the presence of system characteristics that do not depend upon the meaning of the parameters and variables of the particular system being studied .
2 19 Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
220
JAMESG . MILLER
Besides the concepts of the living system and levels, the book Problems of Life includes the concepts of open system, steady state, supraindividual organization, and equifinality . In that book also, Bertalanffy (1952, 125-6) distinguishes between structures - slow processes of long duration and functions -quick processes of short duration; discusses the self-regulatory processes of living systems that permit them to increase in complexity over time in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics; and deals with other basic conceptions of systems theory. He stressed the importance of seeking homclogies rather than analogies. He considered that classical physics, which relates to closed systems, is inadequate to explain biological phenomena and emphasized the need for an expansion of thermodynamics and kinetics to provide a theory of open systems and steady states. Von Bertalanffy’s theoretical ideas, as he specifically recognized, were related to similar developments in physics, psychology, and philosophy. Virchow, as early as 1862, said that the scope of the life sciences must include the living system levels of cell, tissue, organism, and society. Hartmann, in 1912, advanced a system conception. He viewed every finite system as being a member of a higher system and including smaller ones. Whitehead’s philosophy of organism included nonliving as well as living systems among what he called “organisms.” Modern physics, as opposed to classical physics, stresses wholeness, principles of organization, and the statistical nature of laws, putting emphasis upon dynamic rather than static processes. The Gestalt movement in psychology, first enunciated by von Ehrenfels in 1890 and developed by Koehler and Koffka, analyzes perceptions as wholes rather than summations of perceptual elements. Bertalanffy (1949, 193) considered Koehler to have introduced the modern systems concept of the organism. During the period when von Bertalanffy
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
was publishing his writings on general systems theory, several other people and groups were creating important related conceptual systems. Ashby in England and Wiener and his colleagues at MI‘r developed cybernetic concepts and feedback theory. Von Foerster at the University of Illinois added importantly to applications of communication theory to living systems. Boulding at Michigan and Colorado developed systems theory concepts for economic and social systems. The Committee on Behavioral Sciences at the University of Chicago and later at Michigan expanded and systematized general systems theory as it applied to living systems generally. Von Bertalanffy looked upon general systems theory not as a philosophical position but as a set of hypotheses that could lead to research. He did not, however, state his theories in quantitative testable form. His own experimental research on comparative metabolism and cytochemistry (1968:135-136) was not directly related to systems theory although his growth equations applied to many species of organisms. He was most importantly a generalist responsible for the creation of a new field and providing motivation and impetus to it. Its further development must be carried on by others. GENERAL LIVING SYSTEMS THEORY
If general systems theory is to fulfill its potential as a scientific theory, it must continue the study of the properties of systems as such. It is important to discover and test a variety of models and hypotheses that apply at more than one level of living system. Quantitative empirical research on cross-level hypotheses is needed to support the fundamental systems theory doctrine of isomorphism among levels. Our group, first at the University of Chicago and then at the Mental Health Research Institute a t the University of Michigan, collected a large number of hypotheses that appear to apply at two or more levels and to be empirically testable.
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE One particular hypothesis concerning the response of living systems to information input overload was tested in laboratory experiments at the levels of cell, organ, organism, group, and organization. The output curves appeared to be isomorphic at all these levels. Many more such crosslevel researches are needed if we are to develop a sound basic science of living systems. Although all general systems theorists agree upon certain basic concepts, such as the interrelatedness among parts of systems and the possibility of isomorphies among different kinds of systems, the various specific conceptual systems differ markedly in various aspects including their definitions of basic terms. It is important that detailed, quantitative analysis of specific living systems continue and that some consensus be reached on the fundamental issues of systems theory. My own conceptual system is similar to von Bertalanffy’s in dealing with concrete systems -real entities that exist in spacetime -rather than abstracted systems of relationships. Seven levels of living systems can be identified: cell, organ, organism, group, organization, society, and supranational system. Conceivably one or more of these levels could be subdivided into further levels. One such might be systems composed of a number of organizations, like cities or metro.politan communities. I now categorize both of these as organizations. The largest known living system of all, the whole Earth and the life it supports, I class as a supranational system. Living systems at each of these levels have as components systems of the level below and are components of systems at the level above. In order to continue to live, systems at all levels must maintain their steady states by input, internal processing, and output of various forms of matter-energy or of information. I have identified 19 subsystem processes which are critical for all living systems. There may be a few more and it may be possible to combine two or more conceptually. Each process is carried out by a specific set of components. The arrangement in physical space
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
22 1
of its components constitutes the system’s structure. Some systems do not have components to perform all subsystem processes and must “disperse” one or more processes. They must depend upon other systems to provide the missing processes. Some types of groups, for example, process almost no matter-energy and rely upon the organizations of which they are components or upon their component organisms to provide the physical necessities. Some types of systems have only a few components which carry out all the matter-energy and information processes while others have many components for each subsystem. It is important at each level and in each type of system to carry out the research necessary to identify precisely the structure which carries out each subsystem process. THE CRITICAL SUBSYSTEMS
The 19 critical subsystems appear in Table 1. In this table, the line under the word “Reproducer” separates this subsystem from the others because that subsystem which processes both matter-energy and information differs from all the others by being critical to the species or type of system even though it is not essential to the individual. Living systems often continue to exist even though they are not able to reproduce. Two subsystems, the reproducer and the boundary, process both matterenergy and information. Subsystems which appear opposite each other, in the adjacent matter-energy and information columns, have processes with important similarities. For instance, the processes carried out by the ingestor for matter and energy are comparable to those carried out by the input transducer for information. In general the sequence of transmissions in living systems are from inputs at the top of Table 1to outputs at the bottom, but there are exceptions to this. Fig. 1 depicts a generalized living system at any level, with its 19 critical subsystems, interacting in its environment by matter-energy and information flows between it and two similar systems. Table 2 lists the subsystems and shows a single example of a component that carries out the processes of each subsystem at
JAMESG . MILLER
222
TABLE 1 THE CRITICAL SUBSYSTEMS Subsystems Which Process Both Matter-Energ.y a n d Information 1. Reproducer, the subsystem which is capable of giving rise to other systems similar to the one it is in.
2 . Boundary, the subsystem a t the perimeter of a system thar holds together the components which make up the system, protects them from environmental stresses, and excludes or permits entry to various sorts of matter-energy and information. Informatron Processing Subsystems
Matter-Energy Processrng Subsystems 3 . Ingestor, the subsystem which brings matter-energy across the
system boundary from the environment
11. Input
Transducer, the sensory subsystem which brings markers hearing information into the system, changing them to other matter-energy forms suitable for transmission within it.
12. Internal transducer, the sensory subsystem which receives,
from subsystems or components within the system, markers bearing information about significant alterations in those subsystems or components, changing them to other matti?r-energy forms of a sort which can be transmitted within it 4 . Distributor, the subsystem which carries inputs from outside
the system or outputs from its subsystems around the system to each component. 5. Conuerter, the subsystem which changes certain inputs to the system into forms more useful for the special processes of t h a t particular system.
13. Channel a n d net, the subsystem composed of a single route In physical space, or multiple interconnected routes, by which markers bearing information a r e transmltted to all parts of the system. 14. Decoder, the subsystem which alters the code of informatian input to it through the input transducer or internal transducer into a “private” code that can be used internally by the system.
6 . Producer, the subsystem which forms stable associations t h a t endure for significant periods among matter-energy inputs to the system or outputs from its converter, the materials synthesized being for growth, damage repair, or replacement of components of the system, or for providing energy for moving o r constituting the system’s outputs of products or information markers to its suprasystem.
15. Associator, the subsystem which carries out the first stage of the learning process, forming enduring associations among items of information in the system.
I . Matter-energy storage, the subsystem which retains in the system, for different periods of time, deposits of various sorts of matter-energy.
16. Memory, the subsystem which carries out the second stage of
Matter-Energy Processing Subsystems
the learning process, storing various sorts of information in the system for different periods of time. Information Processing Subsystems 17. Decider, the executive subsystem which receives information
inputs from all other subsystems and transmits to them Information outputs t h a t control t h e entire system. 18. Encoder, the subsystem which alters the code of information input to it from other information processing subsystlams, from
a “private” code used internally by the system into :i “public” code which can be interpreted by other systems in it!i environment. 8. Extruder. the subsystem which transmits matter-energy out
of the system in the forms of products or wastes. 9. Motor, the subsystem which moves the system or parts of i t in relation to part or all of its envlronment or moves components of i t s environment in relation to each other.
19. Output transducer, the subsystem which puts out markers hearing information from the system, changing markers within the system into other matter-energy forms which can be transmitted over channels in the system’s environment.
10. Supporter, the subsystem which maintains the proper spatial relationships among components of the system, so t h a t they can interact without weighting each other down or crowding
each other.
each level. The components of only seven of the 133 squares in this table are unknown at present. VARIABLES
Each of the 19 critical subsystems keeps a set of variables in steady state range by negative feedbacks. The system as a whole maintains the steady states of other variables by adjusting relationships among subBehavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
systems or changing the system’s relationship to aspects of its environment. It would be easy to identify more variables if one wanted a n exhaustive list. These variables are potentially susceptible t o precise measurement, although the part of the system in which measurements should be taken and the techniques for measuring are not known for all variables a t all levels. Measurements of variables and compar-
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE
223
FIG. 1. A generalized living system interacting and intercommunicating with two others in its environment. Subsystems which process both matter-energy and information: Reproducer (Re); Boundary (Bo). Matter-energy processing subsystems: Ingestor (IN); Distributor (DI); Converter (CO); Producer (PR); Matter-Energy Storage (MS); Extruder (EX); Motor (MO); Supporter (SU). Information processing subsystems: Input Transducer (it); Internal Transducer (in); Channel and Net (cn); Decoder (dc); Associator (as); Memory (me); Decider (de); Encoder (en); Output transducer (ot).
used to evaluate the current condition of a system or subsystem, to measure the amount of departure of variables from established norms, or by extrapolation to forecast changes in system states in the INDICATORS immediate or more distant future. Norms At every level of living system, chang- have been established for hundreds, if not ing values of certain objectively determin- thousands, of matter-energy and informaable indicators have proved to be reliable tion processing variables at the level of the measures of specific states of variables. organism. Tests have been devised to They are instruments which can be ob- measure them. Table 3 inclues a list of served t o change in real space-time as var- variables, and an indicator for each, for an iables which we conceptualize alter in a illustrative subsystem - the channel and particular concrete system. They can be net of the human organism. Economic in-
ison across levels can reveal cross-level identities and disidentities. Hypotheses about their interaction a t one or several levels can be tested.
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
TABLE 2 SELECTED MAJORCOMPONENTS OF EACHOF 19 CRITICAL SUBSYSTEMS AT EACHOF SEVENLEVELS OF LIVING SYSTEMS. THE COMPONENTS OF SEVENSUBSYSTEMS. IDENTIFIED BY *. ARE AS YET UNKNOWN LEVEL
____
SUBSYSTEM
Cell
Organ
Organism
Group
Organization
3.1.1 Reproducer (Re)
chromosome
none; dou wardly d persed to c level
genitalia
mating dyad
3.1.2 Boundary (Bo)
cell memhra
capsule of v i a
skin
sergeant-atarms
3.2.1 Ingester (IN)
gap in cell m brane
input artery organ
mouth
refreshment chairman
3.2.2 Distributor (DI)
endoplasmic ticulum
blood vessels organ
vascular systerr mother who passes out food to family
3.2.3 Converter enzyme in n chondrion (CO)
parenchymel cell
upper gastroin butcher testinal trac
3.2.4 Producer ( PR)
enzyme in n chondrion
parenchymel cell
unknown*
cook
3.2.5 Matteradenosine Energy S t a r phosphate age iMS) (ATPI
intercellular fluid
fatty tissues
family member who stores food
3.2.6 Extruder (EX)
gap in cell m brane
output vein organ
urethra
cleaning woman
3 . 2 . 7 Motor
microtuhule
muscle tissue organ
muscle of legs
3.2.8 Supporter iSU)
microtubule
stroma
skeleton
3.3.1 Input Transducer (it)
ipecialized ceptor sit1 cell m brane
receptor cell sense organ
?xteroceptive sense organ
none; laterally dispersed to all members of group who move jointly person who iuilding physically supports others in group lookout telephone opera tar group
3.3 2 Internal Transducer (in)
'epressor cule
ipecialized c of sinoatr node of hei
3.3.3 Channel and Net (cn)
:ell memhrai
nerve net of gan
3.3.4 Decoder (dc)
nolecular bi ing site
3.3 5 Associator (as)
inknown*
pceptor or s( ond-echelon cell of sen organ inknown*
'eceptor cell tha group member inspection unit responds tc who reports changes ir group states blood states to decider ieural network group member private telewho commuphone exnicates to change other members :ell in sensory interpreter foregin lannuclei guage trans. lation group
(MO1
m
inknown*
Supranational System
:onstitutional convention
upranatio nal system which creates another snpranational system :uard of a n 0 1 organization oi upranational organization ganization's border guards of horde? property guards impart company upranational receiving desystem compartment ponent that admits new members JNICEF, which transportation iriver distributes company food to needy children CURATOM, iil refinery or oil refinery concerned erating grou with conversion of atomic energy World Health "actory produ( factory tion unit Organization (WHO) $tack room ope1 warehouse com. nternational ating group Red Cross, pany which stores materials for disaster relief ielivery depart ?xport company omponent of ment IAEA concerned with waste extmsion :rew of machin .rucking com- ransport comthat moves or ponent of pav ganization NATO personnel youp t h a t pra duces a charter for a organization
mblic building and land
Jnited Nations building and land
breign news service
ews service that brings information into supranational system upranational inspection organizat ion
iublic opinion polling agency
iational telephone network
iniversal Postal Union
anguage translation unit
Jpranati onal language translation unit ipranational scientific organization
lone; laterally none; downeaching dispersed to wardly distution member who persed to indiassociates for vidual persons, orgagroflp nism level
224 Behavioral Science, Volume 21. 1976
Society
insti-
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE
225
TABLE 2 -continued LEVEL SUBSYSTEM
Cell 3.3.6 Memory (me) 3.3.7 Decider (de)
3.3.8 Encoder (en)
3.3.9 o u t p u t Transducer (ot)
unknown*
Organ
Organism
unknown'
Group
Organization
adult in a family filing department regulator gene sympathetic fi- part of cerebral father of a fam- executive ofiice ber of sinoacortex ily trial node of heart :omponent pro. presynaptic re- temporoparietal person who com- speech writing ducing horgion of output a r e a of domiposes a group department mone neuron of orn a n t hemistatement sphere of hugan man brain wesynaptic Dresynaptic re- larynx spokesman public relations membrane gion of output department neuron of organ
unknown*
I
TABLE 3 CHANNELAND NETSUBSYSTEM AT THE LEVELOF THE
ORGANISM,
Society library government
press secretary
Supranational System United Nations library Council of the European Economic Community United Nations Offlce of Public Information
office of national spokesman of t h e office of spokesman Warsaw Treaty Organization
ITS VARIABLESAND INDICATORS
Variables All Levels (Channel and Net Subsystem)
INDICATORS Organism Level (Channel and Net Subsystem, Neural Components)
Meaning of information channeled to various parts of the system
Measure of the change of the signals transmitted over a neural tract on the processes of the organism
Sorts of information channeled to various parts of the system
Frequency range or source of information of transducer which inputs signal into a neural tract
Percentage of information arriving a t the appropriate receiver in the channel and net
Percentage of total number of bits input to a neural tract t h a t are output from it in a specific period
Threshold of the channel and net
Intensity of output from another information processing subsystem required to input a signal over a neural tract
Changes in channel and net processing over time
Differences in meaning, sort, rate, distortion, or other aspects of signal trasnmitted over a neural tract between one time and another
Changes in channel and net processing with different circumstances
Differences in meaning, sort, rate, distortion, or other aspects of signal transmitted over a neural tract between one time when one or more independent variables have one value or set of values and another time when t h a t value or set of values is different.
Information capacity of the channel and net
Maximum number of bits per second t h a t can be transmitted over a neural tract
Distortion of the channel and net
Amount of alteration in the wave-form or relationships between various frequency components of a signal transmitted over a neural tract.
Signal-to-noise ratio in the channel and net
The ratio in decibels between the amplitude of the signal and the background noise in a neural tract
Rate of processing of information over the channel and net
Number of bits of information transmitted over a neural tract in a speciflc second
Lag in channel and net processing
Number of seconds between input and output of a signal over a neural tract
Costs of channel and net processing
Amount of matter-energy expended in a specific transmission of Information over a particular neural tract
dicators like the rate of unemployment and various indices of stock market activity serve, at the level of the society, to evaluate the current state of the national economy and to forecast cyclic changes in business activity. Other noneconomic social indicators, like the divorce rate or the crime rate, are also used. Comparable in-
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
dicators can be found at each of the other levels. In addition to fundamental similarities among living systems at different levels, based upon their common origin and their common characteristic of being formed of the same sort of molecules, important differences exist at the different levels. Each
JAMES G. MILLER
226
FIG. 2. Shred out. The generalized living system is here shown a t each level. The diagram indicates that the 19 subsystems a t the level of the cell shred out to form the next higher level of system, the organ. This still has the same 19 subsystems, though they are more complex. A similar shredding out occurs t o form each of the five higher levelsorganism, group, organization, society, and supranational system.
level from cells to supranational systems is more complex than the level below it and has characteristics and capabilities that have emerged with the evolution of the higher level. SHRED OUT
The observed increase in complexity, I maintain, occurred by an evolutionary process which I have called “shred out.” It is as if each strand of a many stranded rope had unraveled progressively into more and more pieces. This is a process of progressive division of labor, differentiation, or specialization of function of each subsystem, from the lowest to the highest level of living systems. Every one of the 19 critical subsystems has been essential for the continuation of life of every living system a t every point in this evolution. If any one of these subsystems had ceased to carry out its processes even briefly, the system it was in would have ceased to
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
exist. For that reason evolution did not eliminate any critical subsystem. Fig. 2 illustrates the concept of shred out. It emphasizes the evolutionary nature of the rise of the seven levels of living systems. Each system shown in Fig. 1 is shown to appear a t every level in Fig. 2. One can trace out along a single row of Table 2 the shred out of each subsystem. I choose the channel and net as a n example. Cell. The cell membranes of certain types of cells, such as neurons, are channels for information conveyed over them by bioelectric pulses. Also, inside the membrane of every cell the cytoplasmic reticulum, a network of tubules and vesicles, extends to all parts of the cytoplasm. Over it and throughout the cytoplasm molecules flow. These include messenger RNA molecules passing from the nucleus to various organelles, inducer and energizer molecules, hormones, enzymes, and transmitter substances. The molecular shapes of these markers convey information. Organ. In many organs intrinsic nerve nets are formed by juncture of separate neurons. Bioelectric pulses passing over them convey information. Also hormones which flow out of cells that synthesize them convey information into the intercellular fluids of organs and through their blood and lymph vascular channels. These intercellular fluids merge with the blood and lymph to form both distributors for matter-energy and also channels for information. Organism. At this level many subordinate networks of neurons join to create the complex and specialized neural net of the autonomic and central nervous systems. Advanced forms of neural transmission of information evolve. Myelin insulates neural fibers, making possible more rapid transmissions which are essential for coordination of large organisms. Despite the advances of neural information processing a t this level, information transmission does not disappear in any species of organism. Hormones travel in intracellular fluids and over vascular networks from the transmitter organ which produces these messages to the target tissues which receive them. These media through which
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE hormones flow have evolved into a single interconnected net that supplies the entire organism. Group. In a major evolutionary transition, the air between free-moving organisms becomes the most important channel a t this level. Through it messages travel. Chemical transmissions of molecules such as pheromones are conveyed by direct contact among insects or through the air. Signals such as vocal inflections, bodily positions, and facial gestures move on airborne waves. Spoken or written language between group members who communicate to other members also passes through the air. Organization. Organizations have formal and informal interpersonal and intergroup channels. In informal communications, much more complex channels than those of groups ordinarily convey spoken languages and gestures through the air, or over artifactual electronic channels, such as private telephone exchanges. In addition, messages are transmitted in formal channels by messengers, memoranda, letters, telegraph, and other electronic media. Society. Spoken and written language is the chief mode of transmission of information in societies, through all the channels employed by organizations, as well as through postal services and national telephone, telegraph, radio, television, and other electronic networks.
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
227
Supranational system. Language is almost always the means of communication a t this level. All forms of networks known at the societal level in modern times have been extended across international borders. The first organized supranational network was the worldwide postal system, coordinated now by the International Postal Union. The other sorts of supranational networks developed later. Overall, the evolutionary shred out of the channel and net subsystem is from slow, inefficient, chemical transmission by diffusion at the cell level up to increasingly rapid and cost-effective symbolic linguistic transmissions over complicated networks at the higher levels of living systems. For each system a t every level the basic process of transmitting informationbearing markers over one sort of physical channel or another is the same. It is essential if the system is to survive. REFERENCES Bertalanffy, L., von. General system theory. New York: Braziller, 1949. Bertalanffy, L., von. General system theory: A new approach to unity of science. H u m . Biol., 1951, 23, 305-306. Bertalanffy, L., von. Problems of life; A n evaluation of modern biological thought. London: Watts, 1952. (Originally published as Das Biologische Weltbild. Bern: A. Francke, 1949.) Bertalanffy, L., von. Organismic psychology and systems theory. Worcester, Mass.: Clark Univ. Press, 1968.
This is the second Ludwig von Bertalanffy Memorial Lecture, delivered at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the Society for General Systems Research at New York City. cn3
L
von Bertalanffy was born near Vienna, Austria, in 1901. He died in 1972. A biochemist, he held professorships a t the Universities of Vienna, Ottawa, Alberta, and the State University of New York a t Buffalo. I first met him in 1949 and saw him and his wife on numerous occasions thereafter, in Chicago, in Ottawa, at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Palo Alto, in Ann Arbor, in Boston, and, after the founding of the Society for General Systems Research, in which he was instrumental, at various of its meetings. On more than one occasion I shared a platform with him. At a meeting of the General Systems Division of the American Psychiatric Association he, Buckminster Fuller, and I, among others, were discussants. In the 1920s, von Bertalanffy proposed an “organismic” theory of life to resolve the mechanism-vitalism controversy that divided biologists of the time. This view states that the phenomena of life cannot be resolved into elementary units but depend upon the interactions among components. The whole of any living being has properties not present in its parts, derived from their arrangement in the organized system. In his book Problems of Life (Bertalanffy, 1952, 20), first published in 1949 as Das Biologische Weltbild, he states this point of view:
It is not only necessary to carry out analysis in order to know as much as possible about the individual components, but it is equally necessary to know the laws of organization that unite these parts and partial processes and are just the characteristic of vital phenomena. Herein lies the essential and original object of biology. This biological order is specific and surpasses the laws applying in the inanimate world, but we can progressively approach it with continued research. It calls for investigation a t all levels: at the level of physicochemical units, processes, and systems; at the biological level of the cell and multicellular organism; a t the level of supraindividual units of life. At each of these levels we see new properties and new laws. Biological order is, in wide measure, of a dynamic nature. . . . ”
UDWIG
KEY WORDS:Bertalanffy memorial lecture, general living systems theory, critical subsystems, shred out, channel and net. ‘Reprinted with permission from Systems Thinking and the Quality o f l i f e . Washington, D.C.: Society, for General Systems Research, 1975, pp. 8-16.
Von Bertalanffy is credited with originating general systems theory. He described it as a formal logico-mathematical field, devoted to the formulation and derivation of principles that hold for systems in general. The same formal models have been found to apply in different scientific disciplines. The general expression of the law of mass action, for example, has been used to analyze demographic problems and also the relationships of organisms in an environment (Bertalanffy, 1951). This isomorphy is based upon the presence of system characteristics that do not depend upon the meaning of the parameters and variables of the particular system being studied .
2 19 Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
220
JAMESG . MILLER
Besides the concepts of the living system and levels, the book Problems of Life includes the concepts of open system, steady state, supraindividual organization, and equifinality . In that book also, Bertalanffy (1952, 125-6) distinguishes between structures - slow processes of long duration and functions -quick processes of short duration; discusses the self-regulatory processes of living systems that permit them to increase in complexity over time in apparent violation of the second law of thermodynamics; and deals with other basic conceptions of systems theory. He stressed the importance of seeking homclogies rather than analogies. He considered that classical physics, which relates to closed systems, is inadequate to explain biological phenomena and emphasized the need for an expansion of thermodynamics and kinetics to provide a theory of open systems and steady states. Von Bertalanffy’s theoretical ideas, as he specifically recognized, were related to similar developments in physics, psychology, and philosophy. Virchow, as early as 1862, said that the scope of the life sciences must include the living system levels of cell, tissue, organism, and society. Hartmann, in 1912, advanced a system conception. He viewed every finite system as being a member of a higher system and including smaller ones. Whitehead’s philosophy of organism included nonliving as well as living systems among what he called “organisms.” Modern physics, as opposed to classical physics, stresses wholeness, principles of organization, and the statistical nature of laws, putting emphasis upon dynamic rather than static processes. The Gestalt movement in psychology, first enunciated by von Ehrenfels in 1890 and developed by Koehler and Koffka, analyzes perceptions as wholes rather than summations of perceptual elements. Bertalanffy (1949, 193) considered Koehler to have introduced the modern systems concept of the organism. During the period when von Bertalanffy
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
was publishing his writings on general systems theory, several other people and groups were creating important related conceptual systems. Ashby in England and Wiener and his colleagues at MI‘r developed cybernetic concepts and feedback theory. Von Foerster at the University of Illinois added importantly to applications of communication theory to living systems. Boulding at Michigan and Colorado developed systems theory concepts for economic and social systems. The Committee on Behavioral Sciences at the University of Chicago and later at Michigan expanded and systematized general systems theory as it applied to living systems generally. Von Bertalanffy looked upon general systems theory not as a philosophical position but as a set of hypotheses that could lead to research. He did not, however, state his theories in quantitative testable form. His own experimental research on comparative metabolism and cytochemistry (1968:135-136) was not directly related to systems theory although his growth equations applied to many species of organisms. He was most importantly a generalist responsible for the creation of a new field and providing motivation and impetus to it. Its further development must be carried on by others. GENERAL LIVING SYSTEMS THEORY
If general systems theory is to fulfill its potential as a scientific theory, it must continue the study of the properties of systems as such. It is important to discover and test a variety of models and hypotheses that apply at more than one level of living system. Quantitative empirical research on cross-level hypotheses is needed to support the fundamental systems theory doctrine of isomorphism among levels. Our group, first at the University of Chicago and then at the Mental Health Research Institute a t the University of Michigan, collected a large number of hypotheses that appear to apply at two or more levels and to be empirically testable.
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE One particular hypothesis concerning the response of living systems to information input overload was tested in laboratory experiments at the levels of cell, organ, organism, group, and organization. The output curves appeared to be isomorphic at all these levels. Many more such crosslevel researches are needed if we are to develop a sound basic science of living systems. Although all general systems theorists agree upon certain basic concepts, such as the interrelatedness among parts of systems and the possibility of isomorphies among different kinds of systems, the various specific conceptual systems differ markedly in various aspects including their definitions of basic terms. It is important that detailed, quantitative analysis of specific living systems continue and that some consensus be reached on the fundamental issues of systems theory. My own conceptual system is similar to von Bertalanffy’s in dealing with concrete systems -real entities that exist in spacetime -rather than abstracted systems of relationships. Seven levels of living systems can be identified: cell, organ, organism, group, organization, society, and supranational system. Conceivably one or more of these levels could be subdivided into further levels. One such might be systems composed of a number of organizations, like cities or metro.politan communities. I now categorize both of these as organizations. The largest known living system of all, the whole Earth and the life it supports, I class as a supranational system. Living systems at each of these levels have as components systems of the level below and are components of systems at the level above. In order to continue to live, systems at all levels must maintain their steady states by input, internal processing, and output of various forms of matter-energy or of information. I have identified 19 subsystem processes which are critical for all living systems. There may be a few more and it may be possible to combine two or more conceptually. Each process is carried out by a specific set of components. The arrangement in physical space
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
22 1
of its components constitutes the system’s structure. Some systems do not have components to perform all subsystem processes and must “disperse” one or more processes. They must depend upon other systems to provide the missing processes. Some types of groups, for example, process almost no matter-energy and rely upon the organizations of which they are components or upon their component organisms to provide the physical necessities. Some types of systems have only a few components which carry out all the matter-energy and information processes while others have many components for each subsystem. It is important at each level and in each type of system to carry out the research necessary to identify precisely the structure which carries out each subsystem process. THE CRITICAL SUBSYSTEMS
The 19 critical subsystems appear in Table 1. In this table, the line under the word “Reproducer” separates this subsystem from the others because that subsystem which processes both matter-energy and information differs from all the others by being critical to the species or type of system even though it is not essential to the individual. Living systems often continue to exist even though they are not able to reproduce. Two subsystems, the reproducer and the boundary, process both matterenergy and information. Subsystems which appear opposite each other, in the adjacent matter-energy and information columns, have processes with important similarities. For instance, the processes carried out by the ingestor for matter and energy are comparable to those carried out by the input transducer for information. In general the sequence of transmissions in living systems are from inputs at the top of Table 1to outputs at the bottom, but there are exceptions to this. Fig. 1 depicts a generalized living system at any level, with its 19 critical subsystems, interacting in its environment by matter-energy and information flows between it and two similar systems. Table 2 lists the subsystems and shows a single example of a component that carries out the processes of each subsystem at
JAMESG . MILLER
222
TABLE 1 THE CRITICAL SUBSYSTEMS Subsystems Which Process Both Matter-Energ.y a n d Information 1. Reproducer, the subsystem which is capable of giving rise to other systems similar to the one it is in.
2 . Boundary, the subsystem a t the perimeter of a system thar holds together the components which make up the system, protects them from environmental stresses, and excludes or permits entry to various sorts of matter-energy and information. Informatron Processing Subsystems
Matter-Energy Processrng Subsystems 3 . Ingestor, the subsystem which brings matter-energy across the
system boundary from the environment
11. Input
Transducer, the sensory subsystem which brings markers hearing information into the system, changing them to other matter-energy forms suitable for transmission within it.
12. Internal transducer, the sensory subsystem which receives,
from subsystems or components within the system, markers bearing information about significant alterations in those subsystems or components, changing them to other matti?r-energy forms of a sort which can be transmitted within it 4 . Distributor, the subsystem which carries inputs from outside
the system or outputs from its subsystems around the system to each component. 5. Conuerter, the subsystem which changes certain inputs to the system into forms more useful for the special processes of t h a t particular system.
13. Channel a n d net, the subsystem composed of a single route In physical space, or multiple interconnected routes, by which markers bearing information a r e transmltted to all parts of the system. 14. Decoder, the subsystem which alters the code of informatian input to it through the input transducer or internal transducer into a “private” code that can be used internally by the system.
6 . Producer, the subsystem which forms stable associations t h a t endure for significant periods among matter-energy inputs to the system or outputs from its converter, the materials synthesized being for growth, damage repair, or replacement of components of the system, or for providing energy for moving o r constituting the system’s outputs of products or information markers to its suprasystem.
15. Associator, the subsystem which carries out the first stage of the learning process, forming enduring associations among items of information in the system.
I . Matter-energy storage, the subsystem which retains in the system, for different periods of time, deposits of various sorts of matter-energy.
16. Memory, the subsystem which carries out the second stage of
Matter-Energy Processing Subsystems
the learning process, storing various sorts of information in the system for different periods of time. Information Processing Subsystems 17. Decider, the executive subsystem which receives information
inputs from all other subsystems and transmits to them Information outputs t h a t control t h e entire system. 18. Encoder, the subsystem which alters the code of information input to it from other information processing subsystlams, from
a “private” code used internally by the system into :i “public” code which can be interpreted by other systems in it!i environment. 8. Extruder. the subsystem which transmits matter-energy out
of the system in the forms of products or wastes. 9. Motor, the subsystem which moves the system or parts of i t in relation to part or all of its envlronment or moves components of i t s environment in relation to each other.
19. Output transducer, the subsystem which puts out markers hearing information from the system, changing markers within the system into other matter-energy forms which can be transmitted over channels in the system’s environment.
10. Supporter, the subsystem which maintains the proper spatial relationships among components of the system, so t h a t they can interact without weighting each other down or crowding
each other.
each level. The components of only seven of the 133 squares in this table are unknown at present. VARIABLES
Each of the 19 critical subsystems keeps a set of variables in steady state range by negative feedbacks. The system as a whole maintains the steady states of other variables by adjusting relationships among subBehavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
systems or changing the system’s relationship to aspects of its environment. It would be easy to identify more variables if one wanted a n exhaustive list. These variables are potentially susceptible t o precise measurement, although the part of the system in which measurements should be taken and the techniques for measuring are not known for all variables a t all levels. Measurements of variables and compar-
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE
223
FIG. 1. A generalized living system interacting and intercommunicating with two others in its environment. Subsystems which process both matter-energy and information: Reproducer (Re); Boundary (Bo). Matter-energy processing subsystems: Ingestor (IN); Distributor (DI); Converter (CO); Producer (PR); Matter-Energy Storage (MS); Extruder (EX); Motor (MO); Supporter (SU). Information processing subsystems: Input Transducer (it); Internal Transducer (in); Channel and Net (cn); Decoder (dc); Associator (as); Memory (me); Decider (de); Encoder (en); Output transducer (ot).
used to evaluate the current condition of a system or subsystem, to measure the amount of departure of variables from established norms, or by extrapolation to forecast changes in system states in the INDICATORS immediate or more distant future. Norms At every level of living system, chang- have been established for hundreds, if not ing values of certain objectively determin- thousands, of matter-energy and informaable indicators have proved to be reliable tion processing variables at the level of the measures of specific states of variables. organism. Tests have been devised to They are instruments which can be ob- measure them. Table 3 inclues a list of served t o change in real space-time as var- variables, and an indicator for each, for an iables which we conceptualize alter in a illustrative subsystem - the channel and particular concrete system. They can be net of the human organism. Economic in-
ison across levels can reveal cross-level identities and disidentities. Hypotheses about their interaction a t one or several levels can be tested.
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
TABLE 2 SELECTED MAJORCOMPONENTS OF EACHOF 19 CRITICAL SUBSYSTEMS AT EACHOF SEVENLEVELS OF LIVING SYSTEMS. THE COMPONENTS OF SEVENSUBSYSTEMS. IDENTIFIED BY *. ARE AS YET UNKNOWN LEVEL
____
SUBSYSTEM
Cell
Organ
Organism
Group
Organization
3.1.1 Reproducer (Re)
chromosome
none; dou wardly d persed to c level
genitalia
mating dyad
3.1.2 Boundary (Bo)
cell memhra
capsule of v i a
skin
sergeant-atarms
3.2.1 Ingester (IN)
gap in cell m brane
input artery organ
mouth
refreshment chairman
3.2.2 Distributor (DI)
endoplasmic ticulum
blood vessels organ
vascular systerr mother who passes out food to family
3.2.3 Converter enzyme in n chondrion (CO)
parenchymel cell
upper gastroin butcher testinal trac
3.2.4 Producer ( PR)
enzyme in n chondrion
parenchymel cell
unknown*
cook
3.2.5 Matteradenosine Energy S t a r phosphate age iMS) (ATPI
intercellular fluid
fatty tissues
family member who stores food
3.2.6 Extruder (EX)
gap in cell m brane
output vein organ
urethra
cleaning woman
3 . 2 . 7 Motor
microtuhule
muscle tissue organ
muscle of legs
3.2.8 Supporter iSU)
microtubule
stroma
skeleton
3.3.1 Input Transducer (it)
ipecialized ceptor sit1 cell m brane
receptor cell sense organ
?xteroceptive sense organ
none; laterally dispersed to all members of group who move jointly person who iuilding physically supports others in group lookout telephone opera tar group
3.3 2 Internal Transducer (in)
'epressor cule
ipecialized c of sinoatr node of hei
3.3.3 Channel and Net (cn)
:ell memhrai
nerve net of gan
3.3.4 Decoder (dc)
nolecular bi ing site
3.3 5 Associator (as)
inknown*
pceptor or s( ond-echelon cell of sen organ inknown*
'eceptor cell tha group member inspection unit responds tc who reports changes ir group states blood states to decider ieural network group member private telewho commuphone exnicates to change other members :ell in sensory interpreter foregin lannuclei guage trans. lation group
(MO1
m
inknown*
Supranational System
:onstitutional convention
upranatio nal system which creates another snpranational system :uard of a n 0 1 organization oi upranational organization ganization's border guards of horde? property guards impart company upranational receiving desystem compartment ponent that admits new members JNICEF, which transportation iriver distributes company food to needy children CURATOM, iil refinery or oil refinery concerned erating grou with conversion of atomic energy World Health "actory produ( factory tion unit Organization (WHO) $tack room ope1 warehouse com. nternational ating group Red Cross, pany which stores materials for disaster relief ielivery depart ?xport company omponent of ment IAEA concerned with waste extmsion :rew of machin .rucking com- ransport comthat moves or ponent of pav ganization NATO personnel youp t h a t pra duces a charter for a organization
mblic building and land
Jnited Nations building and land
breign news service
ews service that brings information into supranational system upranational inspection organizat ion
iublic opinion polling agency
iational telephone network
iniversal Postal Union
anguage translation unit
Jpranati onal language translation unit ipranational scientific organization
lone; laterally none; downeaching dispersed to wardly distution member who persed to indiassociates for vidual persons, orgagroflp nism level
224 Behavioral Science, Volume 21. 1976
Society
insti-
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE
225
TABLE 2 -continued LEVEL SUBSYSTEM
Cell 3.3.6 Memory (me) 3.3.7 Decider (de)
3.3.8 Encoder (en)
3.3.9 o u t p u t Transducer (ot)
unknown*
Organ
Organism
unknown'
Group
Organization
adult in a family filing department regulator gene sympathetic fi- part of cerebral father of a fam- executive ofiice ber of sinoacortex ily trial node of heart :omponent pro. presynaptic re- temporoparietal person who com- speech writing ducing horgion of output a r e a of domiposes a group department mone neuron of orn a n t hemistatement sphere of hugan man brain wesynaptic Dresynaptic re- larynx spokesman public relations membrane gion of output department neuron of organ
unknown*
I
TABLE 3 CHANNELAND NETSUBSYSTEM AT THE LEVELOF THE
ORGANISM,
Society library government
press secretary
Supranational System United Nations library Council of the European Economic Community United Nations Offlce of Public Information
office of national spokesman of t h e office of spokesman Warsaw Treaty Organization
ITS VARIABLESAND INDICATORS
Variables All Levels (Channel and Net Subsystem)
INDICATORS Organism Level (Channel and Net Subsystem, Neural Components)
Meaning of information channeled to various parts of the system
Measure of the change of the signals transmitted over a neural tract on the processes of the organism
Sorts of information channeled to various parts of the system
Frequency range or source of information of transducer which inputs signal into a neural tract
Percentage of information arriving a t the appropriate receiver in the channel and net
Percentage of total number of bits input to a neural tract t h a t are output from it in a specific period
Threshold of the channel and net
Intensity of output from another information processing subsystem required to input a signal over a neural tract
Changes in channel and net processing over time
Differences in meaning, sort, rate, distortion, or other aspects of signal trasnmitted over a neural tract between one time and another
Changes in channel and net processing with different circumstances
Differences in meaning, sort, rate, distortion, or other aspects of signal transmitted over a neural tract between one time when one or more independent variables have one value or set of values and another time when t h a t value or set of values is different.
Information capacity of the channel and net
Maximum number of bits per second t h a t can be transmitted over a neural tract
Distortion of the channel and net
Amount of alteration in the wave-form or relationships between various frequency components of a signal transmitted over a neural tract.
Signal-to-noise ratio in the channel and net
The ratio in decibels between the amplitude of the signal and the background noise in a neural tract
Rate of processing of information over the channel and net
Number of bits of information transmitted over a neural tract in a speciflc second
Lag in channel and net processing
Number of seconds between input and output of a signal over a neural tract
Costs of channel and net processing
Amount of matter-energy expended in a specific transmission of Information over a particular neural tract
dicators like the rate of unemployment and various indices of stock market activity serve, at the level of the society, to evaluate the current state of the national economy and to forecast cyclic changes in business activity. Other noneconomic social indicators, like the divorce rate or the crime rate, are also used. Comparable in-
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
dicators can be found at each of the other levels. In addition to fundamental similarities among living systems at different levels, based upon their common origin and their common characteristic of being formed of the same sort of molecules, important differences exist at the different levels. Each
JAMES G. MILLER
226
FIG. 2. Shred out. The generalized living system is here shown a t each level. The diagram indicates that the 19 subsystems a t the level of the cell shred out to form the next higher level of system, the organ. This still has the same 19 subsystems, though they are more complex. A similar shredding out occurs t o form each of the five higher levelsorganism, group, organization, society, and supranational system.
level from cells to supranational systems is more complex than the level below it and has characteristics and capabilities that have emerged with the evolution of the higher level. SHRED OUT
The observed increase in complexity, I maintain, occurred by an evolutionary process which I have called “shred out.” It is as if each strand of a many stranded rope had unraveled progressively into more and more pieces. This is a process of progressive division of labor, differentiation, or specialization of function of each subsystem, from the lowest to the highest level of living systems. Every one of the 19 critical subsystems has been essential for the continuation of life of every living system a t every point in this evolution. If any one of these subsystems had ceased to carry out its processes even briefly, the system it was in would have ceased to
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
exist. For that reason evolution did not eliminate any critical subsystem. Fig. 2 illustrates the concept of shred out. It emphasizes the evolutionary nature of the rise of the seven levels of living systems. Each system shown in Fig. 1 is shown to appear a t every level in Fig. 2. One can trace out along a single row of Table 2 the shred out of each subsystem. I choose the channel and net as a n example. Cell. The cell membranes of certain types of cells, such as neurons, are channels for information conveyed over them by bioelectric pulses. Also, inside the membrane of every cell the cytoplasmic reticulum, a network of tubules and vesicles, extends to all parts of the cytoplasm. Over it and throughout the cytoplasm molecules flow. These include messenger RNA molecules passing from the nucleus to various organelles, inducer and energizer molecules, hormones, enzymes, and transmitter substances. The molecular shapes of these markers convey information. Organ. In many organs intrinsic nerve nets are formed by juncture of separate neurons. Bioelectric pulses passing over them convey information. Also hormones which flow out of cells that synthesize them convey information into the intercellular fluids of organs and through their blood and lymph vascular channels. These intercellular fluids merge with the blood and lymph to form both distributors for matter-energy and also channels for information. Organism. At this level many subordinate networks of neurons join to create the complex and specialized neural net of the autonomic and central nervous systems. Advanced forms of neural transmission of information evolve. Myelin insulates neural fibers, making possible more rapid transmissions which are essential for coordination of large organisms. Despite the advances of neural information processing a t this level, information transmission does not disappear in any species of organism. Hormones travel in intracellular fluids and over vascular networks from the transmitter organ which produces these messages to the target tissues which receive them. These media through which
SECOND BERTALANFFY MEMORIAL LECTURE hormones flow have evolved into a single interconnected net that supplies the entire organism. Group. In a major evolutionary transition, the air between free-moving organisms becomes the most important channel a t this level. Through it messages travel. Chemical transmissions of molecules such as pheromones are conveyed by direct contact among insects or through the air. Signals such as vocal inflections, bodily positions, and facial gestures move on airborne waves. Spoken or written language between group members who communicate to other members also passes through the air. Organization. Organizations have formal and informal interpersonal and intergroup channels. In informal communications, much more complex channels than those of groups ordinarily convey spoken languages and gestures through the air, or over artifactual electronic channels, such as private telephone exchanges. In addition, messages are transmitted in formal channels by messengers, memoranda, letters, telegraph, and other electronic media. Society. Spoken and written language is the chief mode of transmission of information in societies, through all the channels employed by organizations, as well as through postal services and national telephone, telegraph, radio, television, and other electronic networks.
Behavioral Science, Volume 21, 1976
227
Supranational system. Language is almost always the means of communication a t this level. All forms of networks known at the societal level in modern times have been extended across international borders. The first organized supranational network was the worldwide postal system, coordinated now by the International Postal Union. The other sorts of supranational networks developed later. Overall, the evolutionary shred out of the channel and net subsystem is from slow, inefficient, chemical transmission by diffusion at the cell level up to increasingly rapid and cost-effective symbolic linguistic transmissions over complicated networks at the higher levels of living systems. For each system a t every level the basic process of transmitting informationbearing markers over one sort of physical channel or another is the same. It is essential if the system is to survive. REFERENCES Bertalanffy, L., von. General system theory. New York: Braziller, 1949. Bertalanffy, L., von. General system theory: A new approach to unity of science. H u m . Biol., 1951, 23, 305-306. Bertalanffy, L., von. Problems of life; A n evaluation of modern biological thought. London: Watts, 1952. (Originally published as Das Biologische Weltbild. Bern: A. Francke, 1949.) Bertalanffy, L., von. Organismic psychology and systems theory. Worcester, Mass.: Clark Univ. Press, 1968.
