|
Author
|
Topic: Direction of Causation: Response to W.M. Smith
|
platolives
Member
Member # 1966
|
posted 08. May 2006 17:49
William Maynard Smith, in "Shaping Life: Genes, Embryos, and Evolution" writes that he is now less of a Marxist (growth by adaptation and cooperation) and more of a reductionist who "suspects" there is a causal relation in genes controlling development. Yet he says he does not know what direction the cause flows.
A philosopher of the teleomechanist type can help . A critical look at the causative factors and requisite preconditions of an aircraft and its production is quite fruitful. Clearly we can say that an airplane is a conglomerate of subassemblies, that when assembled, can produce lift and thus flight. This would be a mechanistic explanation--disscussion of physical preconditions-- things that must exist prior to the existance of the plane.
The causal direction of a mechanistic explanation
starts in the past and moves forward.. Yet the idea/functional requirement of what is to be built, the desired end is about the future. A goal-directed activity-whose cause works backwards rather than forward. The aircraft would not exist without the idea to build it--again Aristotle's formal cause. So a conceptual cause of attaining desired ends preceeds any mechanistic causes. I think cell and organ function is more about God/agent acheiving desired ends, rather than the naturalistic scientists who offer only explanations 'that it is.'
A question I recently read on teleology provides an answer to Smith's dilemma:
Does an airplane fly because it has wings. or does it have wings because it can fly? First, the former instance seems correct yet it is not. An airplane has wings because of the idea to build something that flys. Likewise, does man see because he has eyes, or does he have eyes because he can see. Vision is the end that is achieved--the agent satisfies the preconditions of cell and tissue speciation for the sake of--vision.
Eric Peterson
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. May 2006 01:24
Hi Eric,
Is not what you are dealing with here the distinction that Aristotle made between efficient causation and final causation?
Efficient causation is what most scientists see as the mechanism or the "how" of something comes to be - i.e. for a flying aircraft - the implementation of the design in the aircraft factory plus the intelligent pilot who flies the thing (although one could have the aircraft flying under auto-pilot) - the whole description is mechanistic (cause and effect).
Final causation - was in the mind of the design engineer(s) who planned to make the aircraft. Aristotle was aware of the fact that animals and plants somehow are passing a "plan" from one generation to the next - a plan indicates a planner and an intelligence that is separate from the materialization. I have designed scientific apparatus myself - and know that the plan was there in my head a long time prior to implementation - and that mental picture was then realized into a material system.
[There is a difference though, between human and divine teleology - the former often requires a whole lot of trial and error to get the final product as a result of our limited knowledge and limited brain power]. If man's teleological function is a derivative (and a dim reflection) of God's transcendent teleological capability I see nothing but a consistent picture in full agreement with Aristotle.
I wonder what your main question is? The direction of causation? Well clearly efficient causation of uni-directional in cosmological time. Although man's creative thought takes place within time, perhaps it takes place in an instant and shares some freedom akin to divine creativity. Perhaps man's teleological capabilities are separable and not totally conditional on material events? Chris
[ 10. May 2006, 01:49: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
platolives
Member
Member # 1966
|
posted 11. May 2006 22:41
Chris, thanks for your reply on causation. W.M Smith wrote says he objects to the notion of control from one direction; as in 'genes control development. He still has Marxist tendencies wherein he believes that adaptation and cooperation (as types of mechanism) contribute to development of the organism as sort of a mechanism. I think Smith, in claiming that he doesn't know which direction causation flows means that adaptation, which is subsequent to DNA's instructions, affects the instructions. Making the causal direction flow backwards (affecting DNA)rather than DNA's control moving forward into the future.
I used the illustration of Aristotle's formal cause to show that the idea to make a plane is in the future and is the ultimate cause of all the processes. Such as in Behe's e. coli flagella--propulsion is the end which is attained.
Chris, another interesting requirement the designer meets is to make structures which conform to physicals laws of the environment which the structure functions. For example, the tailfin of a fish function hydrodynamically, the wicg of a bird, which is an aerofoil provides lift and functions aerodynamically. The human eye conforms to the laws of optics, the ear, acoustics. I don't think the amino acids which make up flagella's subcomponents can calculate the relative torque needed to propel the bacterium. Similarly, Thaxton says that the sequence of the DNA code has nothing to do with the properties of the bases a,c,g,and t. He says that like saying the ink in this pen compeled me to write 'apples are sweet." I'm ignorant of the thoerums in biophysics, which I think could provide some explanations here. We do see structures which conform to the laws of a given environment.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic