The methods of modern research involves dissecting and focusing in on finer and finer details. We would be forever blind to these finer details if it weren’t for instruments such as the microscope and the telescope. These tools allow specialists to focus in on the parts and gain a tremendous amount of knowledge in narrow fields.
But if researchers don’t look beyond these isolated islands of existence they will settle for a fragmented view of reality. And this causes problems for building theories about development and evolution of life. Researchers begin by looking at the parts to try to understand how they “build” bodies. Viewing things from this perspective it was expected that humans would have many more genes than turned out to be the case.. This is the type of error produced by this way of thinking Initially they did not understand the way in which the organism used its genes because they approached it from the wrong direction. Genes are in reality never isolated from the context of networks, cells and organisms.
Jaap van der Wal argues that we have become accustomed to thinking the human organism is made by a process of cells multiplication. But there is another more realistic way of thinking about it. From conception to adulthood a human being has always been a complete organism with a form and function suited to its environment. A machine is assembled from parts and it can only function as intended when all the parts are in place. Organisms are not like this. Where the organism is concerned the cell or cells of which it is composed serve the whole organism throughout its existence. It is not gradually built from parts. Machines are always built from the parts to the whole but organisms are never anything but complete wholes.
It is time to start paying more attention to how the whole determines the parts within it and luckily this view is becoming more prevalent.
Yes ID proponents can be as guilty of this as some of their critics are.
It goes to show how ubiquitous the machine metaphor is.
That depends on what “ we” consists of.
As with your statements about researchers, I believe you are tilting at windmills here. I strongly doubt that “the masses” accept concepts from an invisible realm as the only significant view of reality.
True, those examples are just trivial. I can testify from first hand that researchers in medicine have not overlooked smoking cessation as an important intervention in cancer prevention.
That is a valid perspective. My gripe is with your claim that this view has been neglected because of an excessive reliance on the reductionist view point.
Here is another Dawkins quote from the very same book that should appeal to you:
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
“We” as physical organisms. Is the organism controlled by its genes?
What is the meaning of “controlled by” controlled by?
phoodoo:
That’s not what ’emergence’ means.
By refusing to learn, you’re holding up the discussion — again.
phoodoo:
Example?
CharlieM,
Which seems to be a straw man. Even the most ardent of reductionists recognize that a whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It matters how the parts are put together and how they interact, and none of that conflicts with reductionism.
The real dispute concerns whether the behavior of wholes can be inferred (in principle) from a knowledge of the parts and their arrangement.
Those who agree tend to self-identify as reductionists. The latter often self-identify as holists and believe in strong emergence and downward causation.
Yes for instance, change a gene and sometimes bad things happen which controls the range of options.
Angelman syndrome
Canavan disease
Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease
Color blindness
Cri du chat syndrome
Cystic fibrosis
DiGeorge syndrome
Down syndrome
Duchenne muscular dystrophy
Familial hypercholesterolemia
Haemochromatosis
Haemophilia
Klinefelter syndrome
Neurofibromatosis
Phenylketonuria
Polycystic kidney disease
Prader–Willi syndrome
Sickle cell disease
Spinal muscular atrophy
Tay–Sachs disease
Turner syndrome
Just as the environment in which the organism lives in controls the range of options available.
I’d add Fabry and Gaucher, Marfan and alpha-fucosidosis,and of course Mucopolysaccharidosis types I, II, IIIa, IIIb, IIIc, IIId, IVa, IVb, VI, VII, and IX (although the last two are rather rare).
Here’s a little light reading.
Do the gas giant planets control how many comets reach Earth?
Or is that an excessively metaphorical use of the word “control”?
Is there any non-metaphorical use of the word control?
Kantian Naturalist,
I would use “influence” rather than “control”.
Influence is definitely a metaphor.
1. Agency is one concept that is missing from the discussion (in the parts I have read, at least). Causation and mental causation in particular are others.
2. Agents dynamically create and form representations of self-interested goals and then act to achieve them. They do this in response to changes to their niche and as part of continuing to exist in their niche.
3. Agency weakly emerges from complex, dissipative system behavior.
4. Agency is functionally defined and so is not restricted to biologically living systems.
5. By the definition of weak emergence, agency is not epistemically reducible.
6. Whether the failure of epistemic reduction implies the failure of ontological reduction is a good question, already debated at TSZ. I’ve nothing new to add.
7. If free will taken to be compatible with determinism in fundamental physics, then the nature of one’s compatibilism depends partly one’s view of (6). The List thread on free will was partly about this issue.
I’d say most of the noin-experts who have any thoughts on this are confused. Can I touch the table in front of me or in reality is there some invisible force holding the objects hand and table apart in a similar way to the repelling force of like poles of a magnet?
It’s not trivial. It is one example among countless others where the organism controls its processes and functions. In the case of humans and animals some of the control is conscious but most of it is not. The fact that we are aware of how some actions affect our bodily health and we can consciously choose to carry out detrimental actions in spite of this is not trivial. It is a major advancement in individual self-control. Responsibility is transferred from mother nature to individual beings. Most of us may not be up to the task, but we have been given the responsibility none the less.
I’m not saying this view has been neglected when it comes to conscious human actions. I’m saying the view that the cell controls it own activity in cooperation with others, the organ controls its own activity in cooperation with others, the organism controls its own activity in cooperation with others, whereas DNA controls nothing. This is the view that has been neglected for too long.
That is the view that I previously called ill-defined. Humans have conscious control over their actions, which might feed back on the organs and tissue they are composed of. That’s clear. No discussion. But I fail to see what type of “control” you suppose cells and organs have that DNA doesn’t have. There is nothing remotely resembling choice or intent as conscious organisms might have (except in a metaphorical sense). This is the part that needs explaining.
Please note that a number of commenters have already chimed in addressing exactly the same issue.
I would say it depresses me more than appeals to me.
He jumps from individuals being selfish to genes being selfish. IMO neither of these qualifies as being capable of selfishness as one would need to be self-aware for selfishness to have any meaning. The entity would have to know itself as subject in distinction from the objects around it.
Genes do not have designs in the sense that he means it. They do not act, they are acted upon.
The people who use the language control how it is used.
This is a nonsensical statement. Saying one “believes” in emergence is like saying one believes in the equals sign. Or in mixtures.
Why do you think it is a metaphor, and not just a fact?
What about living organisms disqualifies them as machines?
You make some good points and that is why we need to clarify our meanings. I don’t think it’s good enough just to label people reductionistic or holistic without an in depth knowledge of their actual position. I don’t think that believing that water cannot be reduced to hydrogen and oxygen would make a person a holist. And I would say that many systems thinkers are still basically reductionist in their thinking.
I don’t know about you but I can see a trend from when it was first discovered that DNA was the genetic material to the present. From the central dogma where DNA reigned supreme as the instigator of an organism’s development, to the present day thinking which is far more inclusive of the complete organism. We are being forced into this view by findings such as alternative splicing, organised, purposeful activity within cells, coordinated networks of activity.
I think there are some who are reluctant to give up old outdated dogmas.
None of the genes associated with these conditions you list could have any effect without the organisation of the cell in which they reside.
THe organism has to deal with the genes within its cells. It is the organism that controls the expression of genes even if it turns out that the genes being expressed harms its viability.
No I wouldn’t say they have control over the numbers. But they do have some measure of control over comet trajectories.
You like Goethe and Steiner, right? 😀
I think this short piece from Stephen Talbott is worth a read. Here is an excerpt:
With regards to living organisms agency is integral whereas with machines the creative agent is external.
I have picked the first condition from newton’s list”. It appears that the syndrome is caused by a mutation in the UBE3A gene. Can you run me through the details of how this gene controls the occurrence of the syndrome in the body? You will need to explain how this gene controls the amount of EGAP produced, its transportation to the target site, and so on. I think you get my drift.
It is obvious that the activity within cells is extremely coordinated. We can tell this from observation without having to speculate on the means by which this coordination is achieved.
You could read my subsequent link to Talbott’s piece. He is much better informed than I am.
It might be a useful metaphor in certain very limited cases but I would still say that it does more harm than good as an aid to understanding.
Yes. Steiner always made it clear that people should not believe anything he said as a matter of faith, they should follow their own path.
That is why you will find that all the activities that may have been inspired by Steiner were instigated by others. Biodynamic agriculture, Waldorf education, Camphill communities and so on, all instigated by other people. The one I am most familiar with is the Camphill movement which was instigated by Karl König a Jewish refugee to the UK.
I do? I am not familiar with Angelman Syndrome, but what I can glean from OMIM and the wikipedia page you link to, most of the cases of AS are the result of de novo deletions of or mutations in the maternal copy of the UBE3A gene (the paternal copy is silenced by epigenetic imprinting). I don’t think we need to get into the excessive detail that you demand, but I will just note that proper function of the gene appears to be required for normal neurodevelopment. Hence, allelic variation at this genomic region can be said to “control” development, for certain qualifications of “control”.
Sure, but none of that will salvage physiological development in bearers of a disease allele.
Sorry, I still don’t understand in what way you think organs and cells have control, which DNA does not have. Both require coordination, and both are dependent on biological context. I don’t see the difference.
keiths:
phoodoo:
Mixtures definitely exist, as does the equals sign. Strong emergence and downward causation don’t exist, as far as I can tell. Got any examples of either?
Bruce,
Could you expand on this?
True, and without DNA and the organization within the cell , the cell cannot cause the effect either . Wonder what that cellular organization is dependent on? And the energy to power it? It is causal chain. Scientists have observed that as patterns of the DNA change , things that are essential to the viability of the organism vary as well.
iBecause those genes are controlling factors like the environment it exists in?
If the cells are synonymous with the organism then the gene would logically be as well. So we can say the gene controls the genetic expression, as well.
Exactly, it is the variation in the genes which causes the effect, the other mechanisms just pass along the variation.
OK, but first a rant.
<rant>
My post was a riff on your post saying “weak emergence” was a term of art in philosophy of science that posters could learn about through Google. I aimed to expand that point by claiming that many of the topics in the thread were already explored in philosophy, sociology, psychology, and neuroscience.
IMHO most TSZ posters do not seem to be interested in understanding that type of existing work, even at a high level.
</rant>
For your question, I had in mind what I understand as a standard definition for weak emergence: Scientific domain DH weakly emerges from domain DL if the predictions and explanations from the theories, concepts, representations of DH cannot in practice be made from the theories, concepts, representations of DL.
If DH can only be simulated in DL in practice, that implies weak emergence.
“In practice” refers to the limitations of human knowledge practices, hence my claim that it is about epistemology.
For the weak emergence of agency as I defined it in my post, take DL to be eg physics and DH to be psychology.
Lots of issues could be explored starting from this, eg
– how in principle/in practice relate
– whether complex dynamics is necessary or sufficient for weak emergence
– relation to downward causation, particularly mental causation
– ontological versus epistemic reduction and their relation to emergence
– whether the success of our epistemic practices in a scientific domain mean the theories in that domain have latched onto an aspect of reality
I’ve already offered ideas on these in other threads, and likely am not interested in further discussion, for reasons I ranted about.
I sure miss Mung.
I liked the fact that Mung at least tried to offer some reasons for his views, even though they usually avoided engaging with the science or philosophy directly, and instead most often relied on dictionary definitions, popularizations, and contextless quotations combined via deductive reasoning only .
I only skimmed that article. Based on that skim only, I agree living organisms are not machines as he defines the term.
Since people have fixed ideas of what it means, I don’t like the term “machine” in talking about living organisms or agency. I prefer the modern philosophy of science concept of “mechanism”; see SEP for details:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/science-mechanisms/#RisNewMec
I think agency weakly emerges from physics in general and biochemistry in particular. See reply to Keith for details. See this paper for modern ideas on complexity, downward causation, and biology.
https://philpapers.org/rec/WINRCI-3
It should be downloadable from Bechtel’s web page, but that is out of action when I tried it (early in the morning, so hopefully it is just under maintenance)
http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/
Neither am I familiar with this syndrome but I’m sure the same general type of genetic operations occurs here as in other areas of the genome and its good to look at actual examples.
Can you explain what you mean by function of a gene and how a gene controls this function?
As you mentioned above, Wikipedia tells us that there are various genetic conditions that can cause this condition. So a mutation in the UBE3A gene is but one factor in the causal chain, it does not control development.
The organism must use the genes at its disposal but physiological development will still take place.
We can think of organisms, organs and cells as living processes. They are actively engaged in being alive. A gene is a passive strand of a molecule which is acted upon more than being active. The strand is manipulated by DNA polymerase as part of the process of forming a protein. So this manipulation is a form of control. Now can you tell me in what way does the UBE3A gene control the process?
How come I get to do all the work, when it is you that is asked to explain something? 😉
The function of a gene in this context is its biochemical function, in this particular example the encoding of a protein product with ubiquitin-protein ligase activity. The gene controls this function, in the sense that there exist allelic variants that differ in their ability to perform this function.
It does not have control because it isn’t the sole actor? By that logic, neither do the organism, organs or cells.
Heh, did you forget that RNA polymerase (transcription results in a RNA product) is an enzyme also encoded by genes? If RNA polymerase is an active entity that has “control” than the encoding genes have “control” as well, by virtue of being upstream in the causal chain.
But all this is mere word games. Genes are as “actively engaged in being alive” as organs and cells. Most viruses are little more than strands of RNA or DNA that have decided to go solo*. Now is the time for you to do some work: You need to define what you mean by control, and how that relates to concepts of agency and causation. Only then can you clarify how that definition only applies to higher biological levels affecting lower levels, and not vice versa.
* Metaphorically, of course. Sorry phoodoo.
IMO thinking is an example of strong emergence. And the belief that downward causation does not exist is linked to the belief that consciousness is a byproduct of the physical body. So I would say that according to my beliefs downward causation does exist. And I would have no problem if you were to amend your statement to, “I do not believe in the existence of strong emergence and downward causation.
So in my view the real argument is, between consciousness and matter. Which emerges from the other?
So you are a mixturist huh?
Well, I guess everyone has their own beliefs.
I do too.
keiths,
Are you a strong mixturist or a weak mixturist?
BruceS,
But surely you are aware that calling something emergence explains exactly nothing. It doesn’t tell you how, why, the mechanisms involved, nothing. Only that something sure is complex. Its like saying “Wow, that’s colorful.”
No, its worse than that actually, its like saying, “Well, what do you know, that’s interesting.”
He is a bit of both.
Here’s a deal:
If you can show me consciousness without matter, I’l pay you 100 bucks.
If I can show you matter without consciousness, you’ll pay me 100 bucks.
Are we on?