|
Hi Steve,
It's not that my father felt academia wouldn't understand/accept it
(discussion of ontological issues with regards to living systems)... it's more
that he was very cynical about humanity's current ability to use restraint and
wisdom in putting such information to use. If he published the equivalent of a
set of instructions for creating an artificial living system, then the
consequences of doing so would have been, he felt, on HIS head. His
conscience wouldn't let him do it. He didn't want that to be his legacy. He told
me that the mischief science is already involved in with genetic engineering
would be nothing compared to the potential for harm that he could envision
if our species figured out how to do certain things before we
collectively understand why we must never do some of those
things.
I need to do some further reading before I try to discuss "immanent
causation" with any kind of intelligence. But I suspect that
the answer to your question is that since it (immanent
causation) refers to how complex systems self-organize then it must be
closed to efficient cause-- because that is one of the "tests" of complexity. If
I find something which contradicts that, I'll post it.
Judith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 12:14
PM
Subject: Re: [ROSEN] Rosen and William
Paley
Judith,
When you wrote in the last paragraph that "your father felt it would not
be prudent" to write about immanent causation, what do you mean by prudent in
this case? Did he feel the academia would not understand it?
Also would it be correct to say that "immanent causation" is equivalent
to "closed under efficient cause"? At least the dictionary meaning of
"immanence" as "something contained within" would suggest the equivalence of
the two terms in a sense that "efficient cause" inheres in the
system.
- steve
Judith Rosen <***>
wrote:
I don't know if I mentioned this before, but I had a discussion
recently with a gentleman who was interested in my father's work but had
some concerns that the scientific ideas might interfere with his own
personal religious beliefs (he told me he was very religious and had no
interest in any science that tried to prove there is no God). I told
him that, while my father was not a religious man and recoiled from
orthadoxies of any kind, his work actually leaves plenty of room for the
"existence of God". Specifically, it's the fact that "epistemology tells us
nothing about ontology in complex systems"; one of the key differences my
father pinpointed between simple systems and complex systems. In other
words, knowing how the universe works does not tell us about creation of the
universe. Knowing how living organisms do what they do does not answer the
origin of life question. That doesn't mean there IS a God... but it doesn't
mean there isn't. It simply doesn't address that aspect.
Tim's mention of what my father called "immanent
causation", which was discussed only briefly in Essays on Life,
Itself, and a few other places, begins to address the ontology
question. But that was one of the areas my father began to feel it might be
prudent not to write about in any detail.
Judith
|