Inter-level relations in computer science, biology, and psychology

Abstract

Investigations into inter-level relations in computer science

From Systems to Organisations

“…In living and complex phenomena, on the contrary, 'interactions' (or relations) change wildly, even more often than 'things'. It is my hope that the organisation framework and the perspective it introduces, bringing interactions and things to the same level of attention, will serve as a basis for developing such language and help boosting the description of inter-level relations [163] and the concomitant addressing of proximal and ultimate explanations [164] by allowing the consideration of a dynamics of relations associated with the usual dynamics, as discussed in [26]. If it comes to assist the establishment of a philosophy and basic principles for the living and complex sciences [16,165] will be an added bonus.…”

Specification of Interlevel Relations for Agent Models in Multiple Abstraction Dimensions

“…The specification format for interlevel relations (e.g., [5]) introduced was inspired by the concept of interpretation mapping from logic to describe relations between logical theories (e.g., [28]), which has played a quite powerful role in mathematical logic and the logical foundations of mathematics. This concept has also been used to describe reduction relations between cognitive and neurological agent models (e.g., [20], [22], [29]).…”

“…The ontology mapping θ θ θ θ maps the temporally global atoms on atoms (taken quantitative) at the local level as follows: θ θ θ θ(at(γ, T, body(P, dopaminelack, high)) = ∃V at(γ, T1, body_state(P, dopaminelack, V) ) & V≥0.5 θ θ θ θ(at(γ, T, body(P, dopaminelack, low)) = ∃V at(γ, T1, body_state(P, dopaminelack, V) ) & V<0. 5 Dynamic property GBP1 relates to behavioural dynamic properties BP1, BP2, BP3; BBP1, BPP2 at the temporally local level describing an interaction between the behavioural processes of the person and the dynamics of the body state. The first three were described already in Section 3; the last two are as follows:…”

“…As they are models of the same process in which different concepts used may refer to the same aspects or elements in reality, a natural question is how in general two of such descriptions can be related to each other. In the literature on reduction relations it is described, for example, how by an interlevel relation a functional or cognitive model (or theory) can be related to a biochemical or neurological model, (e.g., [5], [20]). In [29] this notion was further developed by formalising (context-dependent) interlevel relations between cognitive agent models and neurological agent models.…”

“…As a first example, for the process abstraction dimension it subsumes not only reduction relations between cognitive and neurological models (e.g., [5], [20], [22], [29]), but also relations between behavioural agent models and cognitive agent models (e.g., [4], [27], [28], [29]). Furthermore, for the temporal abstraction dimension it subsumes the relation between emerging properties of a multi-agent system and the basic mechanisms for the agents (e.g., [1], [2], [3], [6]).…”