Finality and the machine

[Judith Rosen <***>]

Hi Ayten and David,

Just adding my comments to the discussion...

Ayten Aydin wrote:
> Thank you for clarifications which perhaps places me to a more informed position. From this position I limit myself on commenting on " your friend's describing formal cause as the instructions for building something". 
> Here immediately it comes to my mind the relation between matter and form to build something, let's say a bridge. Yes you start with a project which includes all aspects of the process of building. But it is just a plan. On the road that is when you start building it in reality as new problems show themselves they effect both the shape/form and the material /matter used. Matter and form somehow have to bend to each other. The objective is still the same unless you are stuck somewhere for one reason or the other. In the physical world we could expect to go that far. Even there Aristotle's four causes and their mutual entailments are involved to an extent, especially when the ultimate object of building a bridge is not only building it but serving a purpose as facilitating the living (if there are no vested interest behind). 

I see a difference between analyzing the process for creating a thing and analyzing the thing, itself. Where some specific "thing" is concerned, like a bridge or a road, this is the difference between its ontology and epistemology. One of the major differences between systems with complex organization and systems with simple organization is how these two categories relate to each other, in terms of information. In a simple system, they are the same story. However,  in a complex system, these two don't specify each other-- there is no way to arrive at one kind of information from the other kind. In analysis, like Aristotle's, we would also find a difference in the process of  generating the blueprints for a specific house (instructions for building it)-- which involves architecture, mechanical engineering, and so forth-- and learning "how to build" houses-- which involves civil engineering, materials expertise,  construction information of all sorts, and knowledge about related issues like zoning laws (in fact, relational information of myriad types, like how weather during building will affect the options for materials, etc.). So, the two processes are vastly different, and each has a completely different goal to achieve. It's sort of analogous to the difference between embryonic development and human physiology, once the human is fully formed and born. We can't figure out embryonic development from knowledge about human physiology and vice-versa. What's more, we actually need both types of information, and more, in order to completely  understand "the system".

One of the aspects of Aristotle's Categories of Causation that pertains equally to machines, technologies, and other constructions AND to living organisms, as well, is that the Category of Final Causation (functional considerations) is the most critical category of information, without which none of the others make sense. I think this is because all machines, technologies, and constructions are created by living organisms. In other words, there are aspects of such constructions/machines which are entirely biological in origin and/or nature and those aspects are actually part of the "thing" once it's created. This is one of the ways that information can be said to be "encoded into" a system. For example, beavers and wasps and birds all build "houses" in the functional sense, but each of those constructions reflects information about the organism that created it. So, the beaver dam or the wasp hive or the bird's nest-- analyzed as a separate, discrete system, using the four categories of causation as our mode for analysis, will all have the same final causation answer, whereas all their other information will be utterly different by species. It's also intriguing that their "houses" can often be identified by species, even in diverse habitats. But it is irrefutable that, regardless of species, the functional requirement-- the "need" for a house-- anticipates the house, itself and is also the single biggest causative factor in the house's eventual existence. Thus, biological information is very much encoded into all created systems and this is precisely what muddies the water so damn much when "the machine" is used as a model for all natural systems.

Judith



Web address: http://www.rosen-enterprises.com
BioTheory: An electronic journal of general science based on the Relational (Rosennean) Complexity Paradigm
On Nov 13, 2005, at 4:12 AM, Ayten Aydin wrote:

> Dear David,
>
> Thank you for clarifications which perhaps places me to a more informed position. From this position I limit myself on commenting on " your friend's describing formal cause as the instructions for building something". 
>
> Here immediately it comes to my mind the relation between matter and form to build something, let's say a bridge. Yes you start with a project which includes all aspects of the process of building. But it is just a plan. On the road that is when you start building it in reality as new problems show themselves they effect both the shape/form and the material /matter used. Matter and form somehow have to bend to each other. The objective is still the same unless you are stuck somewhere for one reason or the other. In the physical world we could expect to go that far. Even there Aristotle's four causes and their mutual entailments are involved to an extent, especially when the ultimate object of building a bridge is not only building it but serving a purpose as facilitating the living (if there are no vested interest behind). 
>
> Here perhaps comes in the process approach representing the life itself with all its internal and external implications. It is like Whitehead's seminal statement of reality is the process itself, thus living is a process and wherever/whenever there is a human involvement/touch all causes are effected. Whether these views are relevant or not they are the results of my own experience and observations starting from my engineering practices. Theories and philosophies are perhaps starters but to my mind reflecting on personal experiences in many fields are there to validate them. RR's books and conversation in this list -while at times confusing- have been very useful in shaping my thoughts but on my own way and within my ability to grasp them. These are some uttering on a Sunday morning. I hope I am not bringing a confusion into your tete-a-tete with your friend.
>
> Have a sunny day as we have it in Rome.
>
> Ayten
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2005, at 7:22 PM, David Macy wrote:
>
> > "the instructions for building something"