Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Life and Free Will

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Homo liber nulla de re minus quam de morte cogitat; et ejus sapientia non mortis sed vitae meditatio est. SPINOZA'S Ethics, Pt IV, Prop. 67

(There is nothing over which a free man ponders less than death; his wisdom is, to meditate not on death but on life.)

Reductionism and its corollary, Determinism are deeply enrooted in the fabric of the modern mainstream philosophy. There are leftovers of the Cartesian mind-body dichotomy. Instead to reject this notion altogether Reductionists simply choose the other, bodily side of this loaded coin. Now they reached a blind alley in their attempts to explain life in terms of lifelessness. As Hans Jonas observed “Vitalistic monism is replaced by mechanistic monism, in whose rules of evidence the standard of life is exchanged for that of death.” (The Phenomenon of Life, pg 11). Since Mind and Free Will are biological phenomena which cannot be explained in terms of non-life, Reductionists are necessary Determinists. Hard Determinists reject the notion of Free Will (and therefore Mind) completely; soft Determinists and Compatibalists are still trying to find explanation of Free Will in the indeterminate realm of Quantum mechanics, in stochastic rules of Chaos theory or in the mystical realm of Tao. I maintain that Free Will is a manifestation on the conceptual level of the very essential property of life itself which is biological self causation. “Freedom must denote an objectively discernible mode of being, i.e., a manner of executing existence, distinctive of the organic per se” (Ibid pg 3). Law of Causality is law of Identity applied to action (Ayn Rand). Since biological action is self-generated goal orientated response (SIGOR) to environmental challenges, such an action cannot be predetermined by any antecedent cause. On the contrary, any antecedent or proximate action could be only detrimental to the healthy living process. As Rosen put it “it is perfectly respectable to talk about a category of final causation and to a component as the effect of its final cause…In this sense, then, a component is entailed by its function… a material system is an organism if and only if , it is closed to efficient causation.” (Life Itself, pg 135). In other words the process of biological causation is a process in which final cause (a goal), becomes its efficient cause. Many Reductionists and, as I have learned, many Objectivists would cry bloody mysticism as a jerk-knee reaction to such a statement. However, this is not a case of mysticism, far from it.

Life emerged as result of self-organization of abiotic elements. How that happened we don’t know yet. However some researchers think that this is thermodynamically inevitable event.” Life is universally understood to require a source of free energy and mechanisms with which to harness it. Remarkably, the converse may also be true: the continuous generation of sources of free energy by abiotic processes may have forced life into existence as a means to alleviate the buildup of free energy stresses….” (Energy flow and the organization of life. Harold Morowitz and Eric Smith, 2006). But does it mean that life is determined process? I don’t think so. Life is emergent phenomenon and as such it possesses new properties which its precursors don’t have. In their book “Biological Self-organization” Camazine et al. (2001: define self-organization: ‘‘as a process in which pattern at the global level of a system emerges solely from numerous interactions among the lower level components of the system.

The system has properties that are emergent, if they are not intrinsically found within any of the parts, and exist only at a higher level of description....’’ From this definition follows that 1. A process of self-organization doesn't have antecedent cause. 2. Emergent properties of such a system are different from the properties of its components and therefore cannot be explained by means of reductionism. In other words properties of such a system are not defined by antecedent cause. Life is self-organizing, self-regulated material structure which is able to produce self-generated goal orientated action when the goal is preservation and betterment of itself. This new emergent identity which applied to biotic action defines new type of causation-self causation.

Harry Binswanger observed “All levels of living action, from a cell’s protein-synthesis to a scientist’s investigations, are goal-directed. In vegetative action, past instances of the “final cause” act as “efficient cause.”(1992). This is the mechanism of self-causation. Now is clear why any action imposed on the organism and driven by antecedent cause could be only detrimental-it inevitable would interfere with self-generated action of the organism. Each and every organism is its own primary mover. In the low organisms the degree of freedom of action is limited by their genetic set up. However even low organisms like fungi for example able to overcome this genetic determinism

“During a critical period, variability is generated by the fact that, a system becomes conditioned by all the factors influencing the spontaneous emergence of symmetry-breaking event.

In such a context variability does not reflect an environmental perturbation in expression of a pre-existing (genetic) program of development…It is expression of a process of individuation.” (Trewavas, 1999)

SIGOR is limited by their perceptual ability and capacity to process the sensory input. The process of evolution is a process of development of these qualities, since organism’s survival depends on them. More freedom of action means better chances of survival. The end product of such a process is Free Will and self-awareness, that is-human mind. Free Will therefore is an expression of self-causation on conceptual level. As Rodrigues observed: “Cerebral representations result from self-emergence of networks of interactions between modules of neurons stimulated by sensorial perception.” (Rodriguez at al., 1999)

The human abilities to choose goals consciously and to act rationally in order to achieve them turn biology to ethics .But the origin of these abilities lie in the very fundamental property of any living being. This property is self-generated goal orientated action driven by self causation. Any attempt to reduce this property to the set of biochemical reactions or to undetermined behavior of subatomic particles is doomed to fail. Ayn Rand profoundly summarized the meaning of life in “We, The Living”. “I know what I want, and to know HOW TO WANT-isn’t it life itself?”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Postcapitalist Objectivism in the works of Tarantino

Anna E. Q. Porter

Department of Sociology, Miskatonic University, Arkham, Mass.

1. Contexts of genre

In the works of Tarantino, a predominant concept is the concept of conceptualist culture. The main theme of the works of Tarantino is not, in fact, theory, but subtheory. But the subject is contextualised into a Sontagist camp that includes sexuality as a reality.

Baudrillard uses the term ‘the precultural paradigm of expression’ to denote the role of the artist as participant. It could be said that a number of discourses concerning Sontagist camp exist.

Postcapitalist objectivism implies that the task of the poet is significant form. In a sense, Bailey[1] states that we have to choose between substructuralist libertarianism and the semantic paradigm of reality.

2. Tarantino and postcapitalist objectivism

The primary theme of Wilson’s[2] essay on the semantic paradigm of context is the stasis, and eventually the absurdity, of postdialectic society. The main theme of the works of Tarantino is the difference between class and society. Therefore, any number of deappropriations concerning a mythopoetical whole may be discovered.

If one examines materialist theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept postcapitalist objectivism or conclude that context is a product of the masses, given that reality is interchangeable with narrativity. The destruction/creation distinction intrinsic to Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction emerges again in Jackie Brown, although in a more self-justifying sense. In a sense, the characteristic theme of Sargeant’s[3] analysis of neosemiotic socialism is the role of the artist as writer.

“Sexual identity is part of the collapse of culture,” says Lyotard; however, according to Hubbard[4] , it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the collapse of culture, but rather the paradigm, and some would say the stasis, of sexual identity. Several discourses concerning the semantic paradigm of context exist. But if postcapitalist objectivism holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and constructive narrative.

Sargeant[5] holds that the works of Tarantino are reminiscent of Burroughs. Thus, Sartre uses the term ‘postcapitalist objectivism’ to denote not situationism, as Sontagist camp suggests, but subsituationism.

The subject is interpolated into a postcapitalist objectivism that includes narrativity as a paradox. In a sense, the premise of Sontagist camp suggests that consciousness serves to exploit minorities.

If postcapitalist objectivism holds, we have to choose between Sontagist camp and premodernist nationalism. It could be said that Sartre uses the term ‘dialectic postcultural theory’ to denote the role of the observer as writer.

The main theme of the works of Gaiman is a mythopoetical whole. However, Dahmus[6] implies that we have to choose between postcapitalist objectivism and subpatriarchial semanticist theory.

The primary theme of Long’s[7] essay on neotextual socialism is not narrative, but subnarrative. But Sontag uses the term ‘Sontagist camp’ to denote a structural totality.

3. The semantic paradigm of context and the neocultural paradigm of reality

If one examines postcapitalist objectivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the neocultural paradigm of reality or conclude that sexuality is intrinsically impossible, but only if Sartre’s critique of the semantic paradigm of context is invalid; otherwise, we can assume that the significance of the reader is deconstruction. Many theories concerning the bridge between sexual identity and class may be revealed. In a sense, if postcapitalist objectivism holds, we have to choose between modern dedeconstructivism and postconstructivist capitalism.

The characteristic theme of the works of Spelling is not sublimation as such, but presublimation. The neocultural paradigm of reality states that expression is created by communication, given that art is distinct from language. However, the subject is contextualised into a semiotic subcapitalist theory that includes truth as a whole.

In The Heights, Spelling analyses the neocultural paradigm of reality; in Beverly Hills 90210, however, he deconstructs the constructivist paradigm of reality. Therefore, any number of theories concerning the semantic paradigm of context exist.

The meaninglessness, and thus the defining characteristic, of postcapitalist objectivism prevalent in Spelling’s The Heights is also evident in Charmed. In a sense, a number of appropriations concerning a self-sufficient totality may be discovered.

Marx promotes the use of the neocultural paradigm of reality to challenge capitalism. However, Lacan uses the term ‘the semantic paradigm of context’ to denote the role of the writer as observer.

The primary theme of von Junz’s[8] model of postcapitalist objectivism is the common ground between society and sexual identity. Therefore, Baudrillard uses the term ‘the semantic paradigm of context’ to denote not, in fact, deconstruction, but predeconstruction.

1. Bailey, C. Q. ed. (1971) Forgetting Sartre: The semantic paradigm of context and postcapitalist objectivism. Panic Button Books

2. Wilson, A. (1995) Postcapitalist objectivism and the semantic paradigm of context. Cambridge University Press

3. Sargeant, U. C. H. ed. (1971) Expressions of Fatal flaw: Postcapitalist objectivism in the works of Mapplethorpe. University of Oregon Press

4. Hubbard, L. R. (1998) The semantic paradigm of context and postcapitalist objectivism. Panic Button Books

5. Sargeant, Y. ed. (1982) Deconstructing Sontag: The semantic paradigm of context in the works of Gaiman. Schlangekraft

6. Dahmus, T. S. (1977) Marxism, the dialectic paradigm of consensus and postcapitalist objectivism. University of Illinois Press

7. Long, N. ed. (1989) The Collapse of Narrativity: Postcapitalist objectivism in the works of Spelling. And/Or Press

8. von Junz, G. S. L. (1977) The semantic paradigm of context in the works of Spelling. Yale University Press

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank God. I read it because Grames posted it, thinking the entire time, "What the f*** am I reading? This is why I get so confused talking to philosophers and intellectuals. I simply have no clue how to even begin understanding this. If everyone else gets it, then I am well and truly screwed."

From Howard Roark's link:

"If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism publication."

Unbelievable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting post.

1) I don't understand what the Objectivist position is on the relationship between the mind and body. I know there is a rejection of dualism in there, but on the lexicon I couldn't really find a positive answer, Most of what Ayn Rand said on the issue was related to ethics (not pitting yourself against yourself).

The most intuitive answer I can give is that the mind is an emergent property of the body, but that leaves me wondering about certain propositions made by people. Often I will here claims about the mind affecting the body, and because they are integrated, that doesn't seem completely unlikely. However the mind is just awareness isn't it? So how can though patterns do all the things that people say they do?

2) Please try to format your stuff better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames: I wonder why did you post this piece of rubbish. If you imply that my work is similar to the articles which Porter qoutes,then you are as cynical and indefferent to ideas as authors of those articles.

Hairnet "The most intuitive answer I can give is that the mind is an emergent property of the body,"

Your intuition (whatever it means) gives to you right answer. Mind is emergent property of the body. As such in cannot be reduced to body but also cannot be separated from it. Strictly speaking, one couldn't discuss mind and body as two different entities but only as mind-body unit. That also answers your question about relationship between mind and body.Mind is not just awareness, it is a tool of human self-initiated goal orientation action on conceptual level. Mind is a tool of man's survival qua man.

Hairnet"Please try to format your stuff better."

I try my best, but I'm alwyas happy to learn. Would you please tell me how should I do it?

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames: I wonder why did you post this piece of rubbish. If you imply that my work is similar to the articles which Porter qoutes,then you are as cynical and indefferent to ideas as authors of those articles.

Your blizzard of name dropping and references is simply a weapon in your mind, a way to argue from intimidation. No one ever looks up the citations, just their presence and the number of them is what counts. That is how you regard them, that is how you interpret them. You apparently have no idea who Porter is, or what are the ideas of the authors she cites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your blizzard of name dropping and references is simply a weapon in your mind, a way to argue from intimidation. No one ever looks up the citations, just their presence and the number of them is what counts. That is how you regard them, that is how you interpret them. You apparently have no idea who Porter is, or what are the ideas of the authors she cites.

I think, Porter quite clearly explained the ideas of the authors she quoted. And they are utter rubish. In any case what does it have to do with the subject-matter? Besides, whom I ever intimidated?

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think, Porter quite clearly explained the ideas of the authors she quoted. And they are utter rubish. In any case what does it have to do with the subject-matter? Besides, whom I ever intimidated?

I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you are trolling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grames: If that is intended as parody, it is brilliant.

--Mindy

Nah, just clever.

There are only so many ways one can respond on an Oist forum, I think.

These are the ones we see:

Respectfully, with agreement.

Respectfully, with disagreement

Disparagingly, with disagreement

and,

Non-response.

If one can't apply the first two, I believe, then one should go to option 4 - but that's me.

Despite Leonid's style (and it must be obvious that English is not his first language), he posted some original thoughts in good faith. Style, or substance - what do you prefer?

While I don't yet fully grasp his reasoning, he has utilized some outside sources to sustantiate an Objectivist principle.

That's admirable, and deserves a more intellectual debate - which I admit I might not be up to.B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I try my best, but I'm alwyas happy to learn. Would you please tell me how should I do it?

Overall your paper was hard to read because, for lack of a better word, it had too high of a tempo. My eyes moved too quickly across the page, so that my brain could not process all the ideas at the same speed. This causes the reader to reread ideas, which in turn causes frustration. I would suggest that you find ways to break up ideas into more easily digestible forms. This can be achieved in many ways, in the context of this forum it can mainly be achieved by breaking up paragraphs and leaving blank lines between them. Another suggestion I have is to give quotes there own section away from there parent ideas, which allows the reader to see very clearly that the thought is of someone other than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overall your paper was hard to read because, for lack of a better word, it had too high of a tempo. My eyes moved too quickly across the page, so that my brain could not process all the ideas at the same speed. This causes the reader to reread ideas, which in turn causes frustration. I would suggest that you find ways to break up ideas into more easily digestible forms. This can be achieved in many ways, in the context of this forum it can mainly be achieved by breaking up paragraphs and leaving blank lines between them. Another suggestion I have is to give quotes there own section away from there parent ideas, which allows the reader to see very clearly that the thought is of someone other than you.

Thanks. That was helpful. I'll definitely use your advice in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Leonid,

I would say you are thinking along profitable lines in your article. I noticed that you did not tell what are each of the references you cited. I know what the Binswanger 1992 would be. I see that the article by Morowitz and Smith is available online here.

You mention once that English is your third language. I gathered that your first is Russian. What is your second? What did you speak in Israel? What do you speak in South Africa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Leonid,

I would say you are thinking along profitable lines in your article. I noticed that you did not tell what are each of the references you cited. I know what the Binswanger 1992 would be. I see that the article by Morowitz and Smith is available online here.

You mention once that English is your third language. I gathered that your first is Russian. What is your second? What did you speak in Israel? What do you speak in South Africa?

Hi, Stephen

Thank you for your response and for the link. I do have Morowitz and Smith's article. I quoted Binswanger's “Life-Based Teleology and Foundations of Ethics" (1992); Rosen's “Life Itself"; Hans Jonas' “The Phenomenon of Life", "The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm" by J. B. Edelmann Æ M. J. Denton published in Biol. Philos (2007) 22:579–601 DOI 10.1007/s10539-006-9055-5.

I also highly recommend “Nano-intentionality: a defense of intrinsic intentionality" by W. Tecumseh Fitch1, Biology & Philosophy © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 10.1007/s10539-007-9079-5 which I didn't quoted. I'd like to emphasize that my post is not an article but rather highlights of the article on which I'm currently working. My second language is Hebrew and this is the language we speak in Israel. In South Africa we have 11 official languages and about 20 un-official, so everybody can suit him/herself. I speak English at work and with my English-speaking friends. At home I speak Russian and Hebrew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The system has properties that are emergent, if they are not intrinsically found within any of the parts, and exist only at a higher level of description....’’ From this definition follows that 1. A process of self-organization doesn't have antecedent cause.

That doesn't follow. That we can understand such a process best by looking at the grand picture, seeing the logic of a final cause, is in no way contradictory to the fact that every stage is determined by the previous stage. A computer program can have a final cause, for example a chess program works with the final cause of winning or not losing a chess match, or another program works to solve a certain problem. Yet every step in that program follows deterministically from the previous steps and the input it gets.

The evolution of living beings is another example. Living systems that do not sustain themselves well are weeded out, the winners remain automatically. It may seem that for example the eye evolves because it enables the organism to see its environment with all the advantages that gives for surviving, and in fact there is nothing wrong in describing that process in teleological language, as long as we realize that it is a metaphor for a blind mechanistic process that only occurs because it results from the fact that zillions of other processes that are less efficient, not efficient at all or self-destructory, do not preserve that organism and are therefore automatically aborted. Evolution cannot look ahead, it takes only one step at a time, blindly. Most of those steps will either be indifferent or disadvantageous for the survival of that organism as a species, but once in a while some step will mean a slight improvement for the odds of survival, so that it will replace the original organism (in terms of species) and so on. When we look at the grand picture, we can see the logic and the structure in that development and understand it in terms of a final cause. But every step in that process does have an antecedent cause, and that is no contradiction. These are just two different ways of looking at the same thing, one looking at the "microstructure" and one at the "macrostructure" of the process, but they are fully compatible. Finding a final cause does not eliminate the antecedent causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That doesn't follow. That we can understand such a process best by looking at the grand picture, seeing the logic of a final cause, is in no way contradictory to the fact that every stage is determined by the previous stage. A computer program can have a final cause, for example a chess program works with the final cause of winning or not losing a chess match, or another program works to solve a certain problem. Yet every step in that program follows deterministically from the previous steps and the input it gets.

The evolution of living beings is another example. Living systems that do not sustain themselves well are weeded out, the winners remain automatically. It may seem that for example the eye evolves because it enables the organism to see its environment with all the advantages that gives for surviving, and in fact there is nothing wrong in describing that process in teleological language, as long as we realize that it is a metaphor for a blind mechanistic process that only occurs because it results from the fact that zillions of other processes that are less efficient, not efficient at all or self-destructory, do not preserve that organism and are therefore automatically aborted. Evolution cannot look ahead, it takes only one step at a time, blindly. Most of those steps will either be indifferent or disadvantageous for the survival of that organism as a species, but once in a while some step will mean a slight improvement for the odds of survival, so that it will replace the original organism (in terms of species) and so on. When we look at the grand picture, we can see the logic and the structure in that development and understand it in terms of a final cause. But every step in that process does have an antecedent cause, and that is no contradiction. These are just two different ways of looking at the same thing, one looking at the "microstructure" and one at the "macrostructure" of the process, but they are fully compatible. Finding a final cause does not eliminate the antecedent causes.

Evolution and self-organization are two different processes.

"that self-organization and natural selection are two different mechanisms for generating biological complexity—self-organization providing adaptive order ‘‘for free,’’ natural selection generating ‘‘hard earned’’ adaptive order which is decidedly ‘‘not for free’’—yet see the two mechanisms as essentially complementary". (Weber and Depew 1996; Kauffman 1993: 409; Camazine et al. 2001: ch. 3; Ruse 2003: ch. 9; Maynard Smith and Szathmary 1999: 115–116; Conway Morris 2003: 204–205).

Evolution is determined by the abilities of organism to survive, but these abilities are emergent properties of the living organism. Properties themselves are emerging in the process of self-organization which by definition doesn't have antecedent cause. Evolution is a process of selection of properties which are most suitable for the goal of survival in the given enviroment.So selection of properties is determined by enviroment, but not properties themselves. In fact, evolution is a process which selects goals on which further generations of the given organism would act.In other words it is a mechanism which allows projection of the goal (survival, betterment) into the future. This is exactly a process in which efficient cause becomes final cause. Therefore evolution itself is a process of self-initiated goal orientated response to the environmental challenges which is driven by self-causation. Environment doesn't cause to organism to developed certain properties, organism does it all by itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evolution is determined by the abilities of organism to survive, but these abilities are emergent properties of the living organism. Properties themselves are emerging in the process of self-organization which by definition doesn't have antecedent cause.

The processes of self-organization do have antecedent causes. Those processes can be considered as properties of those systems, that are fully determined by the properties of their constituents. They may be more complex than simple properties like falling down of a massive object in a gravitational field, but they are just as determined. You shouldn't be misled by the word self-organization (that would be like thinking that imaginary numbers are more imaginary in the common sense than other numbers), it is not some new mystical property of the system, it only means that there is no external organizing principle at work, but that the structure develops due to local interactions, between the constituents of that system. A simple example is the forming of snow crystals out of water droplets, a self-organization with a local decrease of entropy, but fully determined by antecedent causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The processes of self-organization do have antecedent causes. Those processes can be considered as properties of those systems, that are fully determined by the properties of their constituents. They may be more complex than simple properties like falling down of a massive object in a gravitational field, but they are just as determined. You shouldn't be misled by the word self-organization (that would be like thinking that imaginary numbers are more imaginary in the common sense than other numbers), it is not some new mystical property of the system, it only means that there is no external organizing principle at work, but that the structure develops due to local interactions, between the constituents of that system. A simple example is the forming of snow crystals out of water droplets, a self-organization with a local decrease of entropy, but fully determined by antecedent causes.

This is true on regard to the process of self-organization of abiotic systems, but we discuss here a living organism. In such an organism the interaction between local parts which creates emergent properties is self-initiated process. Especially it is true in the case of self-organization of neuronal nets which eventually results in the new emergent property-mind. I highly recommend to read this article:

"Nano-intentionality: a defense of intrinsic intentionality" by W. Tecumseh Fitch1, which describes such a process in details.

(Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007 10.1007/s10539-007-9079-5, School of Psychology,).

The forming of snow crystals is not a process of self-organization but rather bottom up fabrication since such a process doesn't involve dynamic interaction between components.

As J. B. Edelmann Æ M. J. Denton observed:

"In the assembly of a jigsaw no new‘‘order for free’’ is generated by the interactions between the pieces—the only order that emerges was already explicit in the shapes of the pieces themselves...Organisms and their component self-organizing systems are as Wiley and Brooks (1982) comment, ‘‘open ended in terms of energy and closed in terms of information and cohesion...the self organized complexity in these cases is arising solely from the rules that define lower level interactions—there is no external input of information! Moreover, in the case of protein folding(Anfinsen 1973), aster formation (Nedelec et al. 1997) or insect nest formation (Camazine et al. 2001) these can be observed in vitro in isolated systems consisting only of the constituents of the self-organizing system itself where all environmental physical or chemical influences have been excluded." (Biol Philos, 2007; 22:579–601).

In other words the absence of any antecedent cause of biological self-organization has been proved in in vitro experiments.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As J. B. Edelmann Æ M. J. Denton observed:

"In the assembly of a jigsaw no new‘‘order for free’’ is generated by the interactions between the pieces—the only order that emerges was already explicit in the shapes of the pieces themselves...Organisms and their component self-organizing systems are as Wiley and Brooks (1982) comment, ‘‘open ended in terms of energy and closed in terms of information and cohesion...the self organized complexity in these cases is arising solely from the rules that define lower level interactions—there is no external input of information! Moreover, in the case of protein folding(Anfinsen 1973), aster formation (Nedelec et al. 1997) or insect nest formation (Camazine et al. 2001) these can be observed in vitro in isolated systems consisting only of the constituents of the self-organizing system itself where all environmental physical or chemical influences have been excluded." (Biol Philos, 2007; 22:579–601).

In other words the absence of any antecedent cause of biological self-organization has been proved in in vitro experiments.

No, the fact that the influences are not external does not mean that there are no antecedent causes, antecedent is not synonymous with external, it only means that the state of the system at a certain moment is determined by the state of that system at a previous moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, the fact that the influences are not external does not mean that there are no antecedent causes, antecedent is not synonymous with external, it only means that the state of the system at a certain moment is determined by the state of that system at a previous moment."

True. And this is exactly what self-causation means. The current state of the system is determined by the previous state of the same system. System itself initiates the change of its state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"No, the fact that the influences are not external does not mean that there are no antecedent causes, antecedent is not synonymous with external, it only means that the state of the system at a certain moment is determined by the state of that system at a previous moment."

True. And this is exactly what self-causation means. The current state of the system is determined by the previous state of the same system. System itself initiates the change of its state.

So you admit that your "self-causation" implies having antecedent causes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you admit that your "self-causation" implies having antecedent causes.

Antecedent means a preceding occurrence, cause, or event.If system itself initiates the change of its status from A to B then you cannot define such a system as its own antecedent cause. The cause of such a change is not a preceding occurence but the system itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Antecedent means a preceding occurrence, cause, or event.If system itself initiates the change of its status from A to B then you cannot define such a system as its own antecedent cause. The cause of such a change is not a preceding occurence but the system itself.

Such a system of course has an antecedent cause for its existence, it wasn't eternally there, neither did it jump miraculously into existence. So at any stage you'll find antecedent causes, whether those are of local or of environmental origin (ignoring here quantummechanical randomness, as that is not relevant to macroscopic systems). Self-organization is an interesting subject, but there is nothing miraculous about it, its development is deterministic at any stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...