#Mutual causality plus

For example, if we know that areas B and C in Fig.В 14.1B are 10В cm apart and that conduction velocities of the fibers between B and C are в€ј1В m/s, we can expect delays в€ј100В ms plus a few milliseconds for each synapse involved. Because we often know the typical conduction velocity and delays caused by synaptic transmission, we can (at least) recognize unrealistic delays. Often, authors use terms such as вЂњfunctional connectivityвЂќ or вЂњsynaptic flowвЂќ to (implicitly) indicate the caveats above. Having said this, in many studies in neuroscience this is (conveniently) ignored and timing in signals is frequently used as an argument for connectivity. So equating lead-lag with causality/connectivity can be incorrect. It would get even worse if we hadn't recorded from A in this example: then we only find BВ в†’В C and we would be 100% incorrect. We are only partly correct: the two former relationships are correctly inferred but the latter is not. However, if we measure signals from A, B, and C ( Fig.В 14.1B), we conclude that AВ в†’В B, AВ в†’В C, and BВ в†’В C. If we record from areas A and B in Fig.В 14.1A, our method of interpreting lead-lag as a causal relationship AВ в†’В B is correct. Peter Senge of MIT explains that вЂњmany systems tend to be inherently unstable because of delayed feedback and response between elements.вЂќ A solution to help return to a more stable state is to have the ability to reframe system dynamics so that short term individual interests and long term sustainability become more balanced and integrated.We have to start pessimistically by pointing out that translation from lead-lag to causality is not strictly possible-the example in Fig.В 14.1 demonstrates this. By understanding this system of loops, we can identify key connections and the configuration of the positive and feedback loops. However, there are profit driven companies that disregard global warming and create nuclear plants that lead to a rise in greenhouse gases, hence the continuation of the loops.ДЄs seen in this diagram, the state of equilibrium is difficult to achieve because of the lack of negative feedback loops. With the rise in fear, a negative feedback is require, namely that public action is required to reduce global warming causes, which leads us to the Kyoto Protocol. The result of the media reports is increase in public fear and hysteria. This rise in temperature leads to fresh water evaporation as well as media reports on global warming. These constant positive feedback loops, the idea that more leads to more, escalates and drives the system into a destructive state.ДЇor example, a rise in greenhouse gases leads a rise in the Earths temperature. The diagram depicts the image of exponential change that cannot be sustained in the long run. As the diagram shows, a network of positive, and one negative, feedback loop links the many seemingly discrete elements regarding global warming.

There are several factors which have led to the cause of global warming, thus, why it important to understand the system as loops rather than lines.

Global warming has become a significant concern to individuals all over the globe. Please note that, the red arrow signifies negative feedback, and the blue arrows signify positive feedback. The example I used in my diagram was global warming. Please find below, a diagram that I have constructed to further explain mutual causality.

Mutual causality