|
Hi Steve,
Interesting questions.
When my father began the process of ascertaining why Physics was
not working to answer questions in Biology, he realized he had to go all
the way back to the beginning and scout for other modes of analysis besides the
Newtonian/Cartesian one. Aristotle's was the most useful of all of
them, although it wasn't (by far) the only one he used. The categories of
causation is a relational mode of analysis. As such, it suited him well and he
was able to use it to develop his own thought structure and vocabulary with
regards to these ideas, and to put his finger on what was missing in
the foundations of science.
In part, Aristotle's concept of "Final Cause" puts a finger
on it. The notion that concepts of function or "need" would be
considered unscientific was generated by the machine metaphor on which
modern science is based, a metaphor that is inapplicable to most of
Biology. The fact that the models which seemed to work most of the time within
Physics are based on the machine metaphor tended to give the impression, in
science and among the general public, that most of the universe
conformed to those models. However, there have been subtle signs all along,
symptoms like paradoxes and side-effects, which whispered that this is not
the case... and that the mechanistic models are too limited.
In biological systems, it's not a whisper but a deafening roar--
the mechanistically derived models will not help us to truly understand our own
physiology and biosphere... or the rest of the universe... and I don't think
they will help us fully understand the machines we are creating to interact
with and through, like computer-based activity. That was the big surprise
for my father-- when he began to realize that the reasons the
reductionistic/mechanistic approach and its underlying models won't work in
answering biological questions have to do with relational and
organizational matters which apply to all systems, not just biological
systems. The importance of "relation" to entailment/causality and, because of
that, the overarching importance of organization on both, he referred
to as "complexity" and he realized that it is a general feature and tendency in
the universe.
Why four causes-- not five, not six...? I don't know. Partly, it
may be because in complex systems there is no set designation or job
title for each component and each may have multiple roles
which are being fulfilled simultaneously... so those four categories
are really an infinite set. The categories have the word "causation"
in them, but that's just the English translation of the ancient
Greek. Robert Rosen considered the categories a discussion of
"Entailment", not "Cause," and as such the categories refer to modes of
analysis; directions from which to mentally approach analysis of any given
system. One of the most startling but useful things that happens when
using these modes of approach to analyze complex systems, according to my
father, is that you get totally different information from using each
mode--even when analyzing the same system. This is
significant.
Also significant is the fact that, in complex systems, the
information you get from each mode is inequivalent-- different from
and not "reducible" to the information generated by any other mode-- even
within the same system. This is proof that each aspect or component of a
complex system is actually multiple aspects/components in multiple subsystems
and relations, all at the same time. That's part of where the "more than the sum
of the parts" comes from. It also comes from the importance of the relations
which bind and maintain and balance the system as a whole. The relations act
like more parts/components. But, if we fractionate the system to analyze
it, all of those things vanish instantly, with very few clues pertaining to
them in the physical structure that remains.
Ways to describe "efficient cause"? Efficient cause always makes me
think of an old AC/DC song; "Who Made Who?". Efficient cause is about
construction, maintenance, and repair of a system. In a building, that work is
done by people. In a living organism, it's accomplished from within the
organism itself. So, the Rosennean phrase; "Closed to efficient cause"
means self-constructing, self-running, self-maintaining-- with "self" referring
to the total organization.
As must be obvious, even something which is
self-constructing/running/maintaining will need raw materials with which to do
those things. Hence, these systems are "open systems" such that raw
materials continuously stream through the system, while
construction/maintenance/repair is also an ongoing, unending process. That's the
difference between the concepts of "closed causal loops" and openness as a
system.
Incidentally, Aristotle's "Final Cause" isn't about "intention"
exactly. It's about function/need. There's plenty of function and need in a
single-celled algae, but zero "intention" as human beings experience it.
Intention is a component of brain function, whereas functional requirements
are built into the organization of all living systems. That's part of
what being an "anticipatory" system means.
Judith
|