Skip to main content

Do biology, consciousness violate the laws of nature?

Our answer to this question is a function of how we understand laws of nature.

If we see them as descriptions of forces at work--that is, as things forcing each other to behave a certain way, then we imagine that consciousness or biology would add another force to the mix, one that works against the other forces.

If we see laws of nature as descriptions of what things naturally try to do or as attractions, then the "trying to" or "seeking" that pertains to biology, animality or rationality does NOT countervail the lower level but rather gives it a super-directedness.  Think here of how an architect doesn't direct the bricklayer by applying force against the bricklayer's efforts (at least not on a good day).  Instead, the architect gets the bricklayer to direct his or her efforts toward a goal that is not just bricklaying, but housebuilding.

A helpful contrast here is between the Euclidian and non-Euclidian conceptions of parallel lines.  One looks at the parallel lines as they exist in a particular portion of a plane.  The other may look at them  as they exist at a particular portion of a sphere.  If you were to measure them at that same point, you might find that in both cases, a line crossing the two lines would divide into two right angles.

To anthropomorphize a bit, if you were a point that lived at that point where a line crossing the two parallel lines forms to right angles and wanted to travel from there so as to form a straight line, you would get different results, depending on whether you were traveling on the plane or the sphere.  In one case you would never intersect with the other point that likewise is traveling at a right angle... etc., to become a longer and longer straight line.  In the case of the sphere, however, the path formed by one point-becoming-line would intersect with the path formed by the other.  But in BOTH cases the point-becoming-a-line conforms to its "nature" in how it moves in a straight line.  In neither case does something force the point-becoming-a-line to alter from its path.

Similarly, perhaps, the physical components of a plant, animal or human continue to act according to their nature, even though they might get results that differ from a non-living being.  The behavior of atoms and molecules in biology, in animal engagement, and in the human to animal engagement are like the behavior of the point-becoming-a-line in the sphere.  The operation of atoms and moleules as we describe them in non-living things, on the other hand, is like that of the point-becoming-a-line in the plane.

(Note: the sphere is to the line what a higher level teleology is to a lower level.)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more