0108 So, I ask, “Which side of Tabaczek’s mirror does team three belong?”

0109 Tabaczek quotes Nancy Murphy, a philosopher and theologian.  In 1995, she quotes another philosopher and theologian, Austin Farrer, who, in 1957, says that, in emergent phenomena, constituents are caught, as if bewitched, by large patterns of action.

Using the motor driven by a hydrogen fuel-cell as an example, I repeat.  An electrical current catches constituents that manipulate the combustion of molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen, as if the chemical reaction is magically commanded to power a motor that will use and dissipate the energy of the current.

0110 Team two studies (or “reverse engineers”) the way that the electric current catches the constituents of the fuel cell that manipulates the combustion of molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen.

0111 Team one investigates the way that a motor uses and dissipates the energy manifested by the current.

0112 In order to do their job, they practice the empirio-schematic judgment.  They discuss their observations of their samples of the hydrogen fuel-cell driven motor and build models using causalities composed of truncated material and efficient causes.  

0113 Here is the problem.

Discussions of researchers in teams one and two put analytical and earnest philosophers in a bind, because these scientists neglect the question, asking, “Why is corporation A making this fuel-cell driven motor in the first place?”, while at the same time conducting their research as if the positivist’s intellect is still alive.

0114 Plus, they think that team three are on the same side as teams one and two.

But, take a look at Tabaczek’s mirror (rendered above).

0115 To me, it seems that teams one and two are agents on the science side of the mirror.

Team three has agents on the philosophy side of the mirror.

But wait, these agents want to be on the science side of the mirror as well.

Which brings me to point 0002.

Consider a sentence, found on page 273 of Emergence, midway in the final chapter, seven, saying (more or less), “I hope that my re-interpretation of downward causation and emergent systems, in terms of old and new Aristotelianism, will help analytical metaphysicians sound more credible to scientists and philosophers of science, who employ, analyze and justify methodological reductionism.”

Hmmm.

0116 This reader can barely imagine the heaps of intellectual garbage that this earnest and prayerful graduate studentstruggles through in constructing chapters one and two.

Then, at the start of chapter three, Tabaczek introduces the philosopher scientist, the guru at the top of the academic mountain (the story takes place in Berkeley, after all), the much-ballyhooed, well-published and honorably appointed, Professor Terrence Deacon.

Deacon works on the model side of Tabaczek’s mirror.  He converses with the ghost of the positivist intellect.  He fashions novel versions of Aristotle’s four causes in order to accomplish, on the science side, what any dullard would do on the philosophical side of Tabaczek’s mirror.

By “dullard”, I mean “a nerd who believes in the risen Christ”.

0117 With that in mind, I have a few caveats.

First, when I mention “Deacon”, I mean what Tabaczek says about the work of Professor Deacon.  After all, Tabaczek writes the book under examination.

Second, on both sides of Tabaczek’s mirror, spoken words mean whatever the viewing agent thinks they mean, because each viewing agent projects his own image into the mirror.

I hope that makes sense.

0118 Fortunate for me, I am already using Deacon’s terminology.  Deacon’s terms label the levels for the interscope of the hydrogen-oxygen fuel-cell.  “Thermodynamic” labels orthograde processes on the content level.   “Homeodynamic” covers the contragrade processes on the situation level.  “Morphodynamic” covers the perspective level, where the energy captured by an emergent phenomenon_2b is dissipated.

Needless, to say, there is one key term that I neglect.  “Teleodynamic” applies to the entire interscope, especially the integration of the perspective-level actuality_2c into other emergent processes.

So, my example of a fuel-cell driven motor is not complete, because the motor gets integrated into another emergent-bearing interscope.

0119 My manner of expressing the thermodynamic (content) level differs from Deacon’s manner.

I prefer to express the unconstrained orthograde reaction.

Deacon prefers to show how the situation-level potential_1b constrains the orthograde reaction in order to exploit reagent properties.

Here is a comparison using the ongoing example.

0120 Of course, since Deacon is much more clever than this examiner, Deacon’s preference allows a generalization of the adjusted thermodynamic level.

Here is a picture of the  generalization, along with the hydrogen-oxygen fuel-cell example.

0121 Almost all emergent phenomena are unique, each in its own way.

0122 Does a general description work?

0123 To me, the normal context_3a of the general description (tendency towards equilibrium) fits the normal context_3a of the example (adjusted orthograde reaction).  Without the adjustment, the thermodynamic example is a chemical reaction that releases lots of free energy.  Boom!

In Deacon’s schema, the “downward causation” of situation-level potential_1b is apparent in the content-level adjusted category-based nested form.  There is a certain pedagogic advantage to this.  The method becomes obvious.  The actuality is a contained circulation of ingredients_2a.  Specifically, this corresponds to the construction of the fuel cell itself.  The fuel cell physically separates the oxidation of hydrogen from the reduction of oxygen.

0124 Oh, did I mention that the “contained circulation” and the “physical separation” correspond to Aristotle’s material causes, not divorced from formal cause?

Yes, the material causes are integrated with the formal cause.  In general, the formal cause aims to maintain a tendency towards equilibrium_3a for the circulating ingredients_2a.  For the specific application, this requires the physical separation of the reagents, molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen, as well as the separation of the sites where electron loss and gain occur.

Tabaczek intuitively couples material and formal causes.  He puts them into the same basket, so to speak, without explaining why.

0125 So, the tendency towards equilibrium_3a is formalized by the way that ingredients are circulated and contained_2abased on the potential of maintaining a displacement from equilibrium_1a.  One efficient cause is obvious in the specific case.  The physical separation_1a of the anode and cathode_2a forces the hydrogen to give up its electrons at the anode and the oxygen to take up its electrons at the cathode.  But, that is not the only efficient cause.  The addition of a polysulfonate barrier, creating a forest of negative charges for positively charged hydrogen ions to enter, improves “the circulation of ingredients”.

0126 The couplings of actuality_2a and potential_1a in the efficient causes cannot be divorced from the final cause, which says, “There is more to the potential that what the scientist maintains.”

Yes, the normal context_3a and potential_1a simultaneously select for and give rise to the actuality_2a.  Darwinian natural selection for multicellular organisms offers an analogy.  On one hand, natural selection selects.  On the other hand, sexual reproduction offers variation.  The logic of normal contexts is to exclude, align or complement.  The logic of potential is to include, even to allow contradictions.  So, in the scientific laboratory, a lot of failed experiments take place before the proper conditions, the proper “containment of circulating ingredients” is isolated within the constraints of the normal context_3a (the scientific question at hand) and out of the ordered chaos of the laboratory_1a (the instruments and equipment at hand).

“Final causes” label the manifestation of an actuality_2a within its normal context_3a and out of its potential_1a.  They also describe intentionality.

0127 The problem?

Final causes are metaphysical.

The ghost of the positivist intellect has a rule, “Metaphysics is not allowed.”

And, that rule spooks the agents on the science side of Tabaczek’s mirror.

That is the specter that fogs their mirror.

0128 Here is the homeodynamic (or situation) level general and specific nested forms.

0129 The fuel cell_3b is the normal context for the example.

Does the fuel cell amplify the non-equilibrium dynamics_3b of the adjusted orthograde reaction_3a?

Of course it does.

0130 Final causes come to the fore.

The normal context of a fuel cell_3b operates on the potential of ‘a contragrade arrangement for the orthograde chemical reaction of molecular hydrogen and molecular oxygen’_1b in order to produce an electric current_2b.

A normal context that amplifies a nonequilibrium dynamic_3b brings an emergent being_2b into relation with the potential of ‘constraints and biases imposed on an orthograde process’_1b.

If I, as a scientist, say, “The contragrade arrangement_1b of the adjusted orthograde reaction_3a explains the emergent phenomenon_2b, the electric current_2b, in terms of instrumental and efficient causality.”, I really am saying, “I have imported the shadow of final causality into my declaration of modern instrumental and efficient causes.”

0131 The emergent phenomena_2b, the electric current_2b, has “a life” of its own, in the sense that it represents the capture of some of the free energy of an orthograde process.  It is a “non-self” self, within the “self” of the entire interscope, the fuel-cell driven motor for sale by corporation A.  The motor dissipates the energy represented by the current and translates it into movement.  So, the power_2c of the emergent being_2b that virtually situates (and emerges from) the fuel cell_2a is dissipated as mechanical movement_2c.  The dissipated power_2c persists as movement_2c.

0132 Here is a picture of the virtual nested form for all three levels in the realm of actuality.

0133 Now, I can look at the emergent phenomenon_2b, as a thing in itself, an actuality that needs to be understood in material terms.  Here, Aristotle’s hylomorphe is a good place to start: matter [substantiates] form.

On one hand, the electrical current_2b is directly contextualized in the normal context of a fuel cell_3b arising from the potential of a contragrade arrangement of hydrogen and oxygen gases_1b.  On the other hand, the emergent phenomenon_2bis part of a grander scheme (or virtual normal context_2c) that formalizes the phenomenon_2b and orders its material_2b(anode, wire, motor, wire, cathode) and efficient (design of fuel cell) causations_2a.

The above nested form portrays the “on the other hand”.

0134 This virtual nested form is such a discovery that Deacon deserves a commendation that philosophers talking about “emergence” and “downward causation” may not deserve.

Deacon presents his discovery entirely within the science side of Tabaczek’s mirror.

Here is a picture.

0135 The “dullard” Tabaczek notices the subtle change and that gives him inspiration.  Deacon clearly (and significantly) alters Aristotelian notions so that formal causes fall under the label of “material” and final causes sort into the title of “efficient”. 

Or something like that.

Nevertheless, when looking into the mirror of natural philosophy, Deacon sees the ghost of the positivist intellect conjuring a smoky image of a noumenon [cannot be objectified as] its phenomena.

0136 How so?

Well, Deacon (sort of) regards the constraints and biases imposed on the orthograde reaction_1b and the simplifications demanded from the emergent phenomenon_1c as “causes”.

Tabaczek wrestles with this apparent misapplication of the term, “causes”.  Deacon’s “causes” do not seem, at first blush, to correspond to Aristotle’s four causes.

However, if I have learned anything from this examination, it is the following.

0137 First, in emergence, “downward causation” follows the nature of a passage from a lower-level category-based nested form to a higher-level and the subsequent ordering of the lower-level in response to the new situation or new perspective.

Second, in emergence, both the category-based nested forms that compose each horizontal level and the vertical virtual category-based nested forms that compose each vertical column in Tabaczek’s interscope exercise all of Aristotle’s causesin a holistic manner.

0138 With that in mind, I turn to the morphodynamic level.

The morphodynamic level puts the homeodynamic level into perspective, just as the homeodynamic level situates the adjusted thermodynamic level.

0139 Here is a comparison of the general formulation and the ongoing application.

0140 For the example, the dynamic form_3c is the fuel-cell driven motor_3c.

The power_2c of the emergent phenomenon_2b is intentionally dissipated as movement_2c.

So, the example’s potential_1c is ‘mechanical work’.

So, why does Deacon, the Professor Scientist-Educator, choose the label, ‘simpification’_1c?

0141 Perhaps, ‘simplification’_1c better evokes final causality hidden in the shadow of the image of ‘mechanical work’_1c as an efficient cause.

Certainly, it evokes the virtual formal cause that says, “If this fuel cell is going to work for this motor, it had better be both reliable and small.”

0142 What does that call for?

Simplification.

Each feature of the fuel cell adapts to this formal requirement_1c, commanding from its perch as the perspective-level potential_1c.

0143 Indeed, some emergent phenomena_2b, self-less “selves” operating within a even more emergent “self”, are stunning in their simplicity and beauty.  They are amazing in the way that they arise from constraints_1b imposed on processes_2a that would otherwise occur without them.  It is as if a designer sees an opportunity_1b to take a little of that “otherwise” energy_2a and fashion it to produce something that might otherwise not occur_2b.

Emergent phenomena_2b are what we think of when we think about creation. 

0144 Part two of Tabaczek’s book builds a case for the noumenal side of the mirror.

Needless to say, I cover much of this territory during my account of the historical development of Tabaczek’s mirror.

0145 Chapter four presents six theories that associate to emergent phenomena in our world.

When a philosopher of science looks from the empirio-schematic side into Tabaczek’s mirror, the following describes what appears in the looking glass.

Yes, the focus is on emergent phenomena.  The rest of the mirror is clouded by the ghost of the positivist intellect.

0146 Agents on the metaphysical side of the mirror are also not pleased.

In section 4.7, Tabaczek concludes that no current proposal recognizes that emergent phenomena are better described as dispositions [properties] powers, rather than the observable and measurable facets of… what?  What is the thing itself in a world where one emergence is incorporated and taken for granted by another?  When does the scientist realize that emergent phenomena coincide with the dispositions [properties] powers within a noumenon.  Plus, the noumenon is an emergent being.

0147 In particular, inadequate models cannot substitute for the emergent being.

Disciplinary languages bound to truncated material and efficient causalities sneak in the characteristics of formal and final causation, under the table, so to speak.  The contiguity between a noumenon and its dispositions [properties] powersincludes both whole and parts.

Dispositions [properties] powers of parts and whole are what give rise to emergent phenomena that can be observed and measured.

0148 Who do I blame?

The ghost of the positivist intellect?

0397 Tomasello’s book opens with a hypothesis.  Interpendence₂ emerges from (and situates) cooperation₁.  In terms of Tomasello’s vision, interdependence₂ replaces human culture_2b and cooperation_1b virtually situates joint-attention_2a as an adaptation to sociogenesis_1a.  Cooperation_1b may be defined as the potential of joint- and collective-attention_2a.

0398 Of course, the other option is to consider cooperation_2b as an actuality and interdependence_1b as a possibility.

The option that I offer captures Tomasello’s claim that there are two forms to cooperation: mutualistic collaboration andaltruistic helping.  Classical philosophers discuss these two forms in terms of motives.  Mutualistic collaboration harbors a motive for justice (that is, the right, as in “righteous”).  Altruistic helping carries a motive for beneficence (that is, the good).  Yes, philosophers distinguish fairness from sympathy.  Each exhibits is own style of morality, where morality associates with the possibility of what is righteous and good_1b.

0399 So, why say that cooperation_1b is the potential_1b of joint attention_2a?

Joint attention_2a holds the potential of justice and beneficence, the motives for cooperations_1b.

Plus, moral dilemmas reside in the way that interdependence_2b, the actuality emerging from (and situating) cooperation_1b, plays out.

0400 Remember, the sociogenesis_1a of teams entails competition (each member of the team is selected by all others) for the honor of cooperating (that is, manifesting the potential of joint attention_2a).

Hominins compete to cooperate.

Morality plays roles in both competition and cooperation.

Ah, that must mean that morality is embedded in cultural selection_3b.

0400 Tomasello intends to provide an evolutionary account for the natural history of human morality_3b, as the normal context for unique forms of social interaction and organization of the Homo genus_2b (that is, interdependence_2b), emerging from the cultivation of fairness and sympathy_1b (that is, cooperation_1b).

Here are two pictures of one situation-level nested form.