0097 Chapter two is titled, “Metaphysical Challenges for Emergence and Downward Causation”.

Once again, here is my human-designed example for an emergent phenomena: the hydrogen-oxygen fuel cell.

0098 Notice that the thermodynamic_a level has been adjusted_3a to account for the situational potential of a contragrade arrangement_1b, giving the appearance of downward causation.

In a similar manner, the fuel cell_3b design may be honed to maximize the potential of mechanical work_1c.

So, “downward causation” is the label applied when the potential of a higher level influences the normal context of adjacent lower level.

0099 Now, for a thought experiment.  Let me say that a motor powered by a hydrogen fuel-cell is made by corporation A and falls into the hands of corporation B, which would like to… um… “reproduce” the technology, in order to not be purchased outright by the profitable corporation A.

What falls into the hands of corporation B?

A fuel-cell powers a motor.

0100 The motor goes off to be analyzed by one technical team.

The fuel cell goes off to be analyzed by a second technical team.

0101 Funny, there are two “appearances of downward causation” and corporation B assigns two technical teams to the one project.  Plus, corporation B assigns a third team to coordinate the two technical teams.  Philosophers are assigned to this team.

Here is a picture.

0102 Here is how team one sees the problem.

The motor is material.  What are the materials?  The motor efficiently converts electrical current into mechanical work.  What are the efficient causes?  The motor is made by corporation A.  Is that an efficient cause or a final cause?  Who knows?  Well, we know that its a motor.  And what is the purpose of this motor?  Better ask team three.

0103 Here is how team two sees the challenge.

The fuel cell is material.  What are the materials?  The fuel cell produces an emergent phenomenon, an electric current, by separating the oxidation of molecular hydrogen from the reduction of molecular oxygen.  The technology is advanced, since the cathode (the hydrogen side) and the anode (the oxygen side) are specially designed as instruments for this purpose.  The materials touch base with the formal cause.  The formal cause is the generation of electricity.  We suspect that the free-energy of the overall chemical reaction is captured as an electric current, because that fits the fuel-cell’s design.  Design goes with formal causes.

How do we know for sure?  Ask team three.

0104 Here is how team three sees the challenge.

We need our spies in corporation A to tell us what specifically this device is designed to do (formal cause) as well as for what overall purpose (final cause).  

0105 Tabaczek, who seeks to introduce Aristotle’s four causes from his own, natural philosophical point of view, regards the activities of the three teams at work in corporation B, as they are reflected in the mirror of theology.

He asks, “Where do I see Aristotle’s four causes in emergence and downward causation?”

After all, this is precisely what the three teams in corporation B seem to be dealing with.  The electrical current is an emergent phenomenon that powers a motor for unknown purposes.  The potential of each higher level of analysis orders the configuration of the adjacent lower level analysis.  Can that be called, “downward causation”?

Of course!  But, if someone in team three tries to figure out the material, efficient, final and formal causation, that person is faced with two implied hylomorphes.

0106 Plus, the contiguities in Peirce’s secondness may range far and wide, but they all touch base with Aristotle’s exemplar, matter [substantiates] form, as foundational icon.  The terms, “coordinate” and “integrate” take on the characteristic of  “causes”, broadly defined as a contiguity between two real elements.

A scientist would like to simplify all this into one hylomorphe: material causes [integrate] efficient causes.  The causes that matter are physical.  The causes that form are reductive (that is, the higher-level potential is merely a manifestation of the adjacent lower-level nested form).  The scientist’s preference is called “reductive physicalism”.

0107 The metaphysicians say, “Whoa, that is a step too far.  The implied hylomorphes are both real and account for the existence of team three, which employs us.”

They label the two implied hylomorphes, “nonreductive physicalism”, in order to articulate their disagreement.

Articulate their disagreement?

Labels are important.

“Reductive physicalism” shoehorns emergence into modern truncated efficient and material causations.

“Nonreductive physicalism” acknowledges that final and formal causes cannot simply be cut out of the scientific analysis.

Note the compromise.

Typically, the term, “physicalism”, elevates modern truncated material and efficient causations.

These metaphysicians want to remain on the science side of Tabaczek’s mirror.

That is where the money is.

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?