Thanks dear for bringing the thread back on track.
I do not believe if we want to discuss the issue in a scientific form we can make the mistake of pre-supposing some kind of causality.
In fact it seems like it is a very short leap from the start to determining that SOME KIND of causality exists, it is an element that is more part of our (living humans) nature than any type of raw force in physics or cosmology.
And that to me is ultimately the question!
We have discussed in the past the idea that life has at least a few properties that plain old physics or math does not recognize, such as stimulus-response.
We all agree that man is dust. We would all agree that there is no way two pile of dust could ever, under the current understanding of physics, do something like send an email to each other!
That’s a pretty astounding though when you reflect on it.
So if man and life itself is the C, atoms and quarks and energy is the A, then what is the B? A+B=C
Whatever would prompt one pile of dust to send an email to another pile, that is the essence, THAT PART is the causality we are searching for.
And I cannot see anything in regular physics or math that explains it.
It’s interesting because I watched a BBC vid on Youtube about cells. Very informative.
The cells have a certain construction, and have millions (or even billions) of these little molecular machines that wander around. Building things up, tearing things down, transporting items from one place to another.
And not a single one of these machines, NOT ONE, can be said to have anything resembling “an intent” or “a purpose” or “self awareness”!
And not a single one of these machines, NOT ONE, can be said to have anything resembling “an intent” or “a purpose” or “self awareness”!
Consider a cold blooded reptile (at sometime in the past) deciding to grow feathers..
Which goes against the “Law of Increasing Entropy” meaning everything runs down...
Or when a gene structure is close to perfect it does not change(much)... except by extinction.. or staying the same..
i.e. turtles, sharks, snakes, etc..
Evolving into a totally different machine has not been seen..
It seems to be a fantasy... like other “liberal” fantasy’s like socialism.. democracy etc....
You know....... Scientific-Fiction.. i.e. perpetual motion...
The Rube Goldberg Intelligentsia.. Carnival Barker Whiz kids..
Certainly not, djf. Still, cells "seem to know what to do" as parts in order to articulate a "whole" living organism. Material and efficient causation alone do not, and cannot, explain this.
Some thoughts on this question, sourced to Attila Grandpierre's article, "Fundamental Complexity Measures of Life," in Divine Action and Natural Selection: Science, Faith, and Evolution, J. Seckback & R. Gordon, eds, 2009:
The difference between the machine and the living organism is like the difference between numbers and mathematical rules. The complexity of the machine is phenomenological, static, and passive, while that of the living organism is organizational, dynamic, and active.Yes, we all agree that "man is dust." But he ain't "just dust." Dust has not got a clue about how to organize a living, self-conscious human being.
Let us approach the distinctions between machines and living organisms in light of the difference between physical "organization" (termed as "self-organization") and biological organization. As the root of the world "organization"("organ") tells, organization belongs to the realm of biology. Physical "organization" is present in the order of crystals, of magnets, of snowflake patterns, of convection patters, of reaction-diffusion patterns, etc. Physical "organization" represents actually not organizational, but ordering processes.
Actually, ordering and organization are two fundamentally different processes.... In physical ordering, patterns of elements can be generated, and in man-made machines they follow prescribed rules. In living organisms, biological organization generates new rules from time-step to time-step....
A living organism follows the continuously changing internal and external contexts, and reacts to them on the basis of its own principle [formal cause] driving its biological organization towards the optimization of life's conditions. Biological organization is like writing, while physical ordering is mechanical repetition of words following merely syntactical rules, if any. It is these syntactic rules that represent algorithmic complexity. In contrast, the semiotic principles correspond to a deeper, principal level of complexity. This is why machines cannot rebuild themselves from time-step to time-step. At the same time, this is the most fundamental property of organisms.
Denbigh (1975...) emphasizes that "one cannot speak of an entity as being organized without at once raising the question: What is it organized for [final cause]? ... A machine is not explainable by the laws of physics and chemistry (even though the material of which it is composed obeys these laws); machines have always to be understood in terms of their own specific operational principles laid down by those who design them."...The central thesis of physicalism proclaims the causal closure of the physical. Ashby's Law ... and Kahre's Law of Diminishing Information ... stated that physical systems cannot produce more information at their output than was present at their input. This means that for physical systems, complexity jumps are simply not possible....
I know you have a keen interest in artificial intelligence/artificial life, which theoretically can be manifested by means of mechanical simulation of "the real thing" — i.e., living, conscious human beings. But how can one "simulate" what one does not understand in the first place?.
Well, the questions are lively ones for sure. We have more fun than cats!
Thank you so very much for writing, dear djf!