The Causal Closure of Physics in Real World Contexts

Efficient, Formal, Material, and Final Causes in Biology and Technology

This paper considers how a classification of causal effects as comprising efficient, formal, material, and final causation can provide a useful understanding of how emergence takes place in biology and technology, with formal, material, and final causation all including cases of downward causation; they each occur in both synchronic and diachronic forms. Taken together, they underlie why all emergent levels in the hierarchy of emergence have causal powers (which is Noble's principle of biological relativity) and so why causal closure only occurs when the upwards and downwards interactions between all emergent levels are taken into account, contra to claims that some underlying physics level is by itself causality complete. A key feature is that stochasticity at the molecular level plays an important role in enabling agency to emerge, underlying the possibility of final causation occurring in these contexts.

Mind Causality: A Computational Neuroscience Approach

A neuroscience-based approach has recently been proposed for the relation between the mind and the brain. The proposal is that events at the sub-neuronal, neuronal, and neuronal network levels take place simultaneously to perform a computation that can be described at a high level as a mental state, with content about the world. It is argued that as the processes at the different levels of explanation take place at the same time, they are linked by a non-causal supervenient relationship: causality can best be described in brains as operating within but not between levels. This mind-brain theory allows mental events to be different in kind from the mechanistic events that underlie them; but does not lead one to argue that mental events cause brain events, or vice versa: they are different levels of explanation of the operation of the computational system. Here, some implications are developed. It is proposed that causality, at least as it applies to the brain, should satisfy three conditions. First, interventionist tests for causality must be satisfied. Second, the causally related events should be at the same level of explanation. Third, a temporal order condition must be satisfied, with a suitable time scale in the order of 10 ms (to exclude application to quantum physics; and a cause cannot follow an effect). Next, although it may be useful for different purposes to describe causality involving the mind and brain at the mental level, or at the brain level, it is argued that the brain level may sometimes be more accurate, for sometimes causal accounts at the mental level may arise from confabulation by the mentalee, whereas understanding exactly what computations have occurred in the brain that result in a choice or action will provide the correct causal account for why a choice or action was made. Next, it is argued that possible cases of "downward causation" can be accounted for by a within-levels-of-explanation account of causality. This computational neuroscience approach provides an opportunity to proceed beyond Cartesian dualism and physical reductionism in considering the relations between the mind and the brain.

A biochemically-realisable relational model of the self-manufacturing cell

As shown by Hofmeyr, the processes in the living cell can be divided into three classes of efficient causes that produce each other, so making the cell closed to efficient causation, the hallmark of an organism. They are the enzyme catalysts of covalent metabolic chemistry, the intracellular milieu that drives the supramolecular processes of chaperone-assisted folding and self-assembly of polypeptides and nucleic acids into functional catalysts and transporters, and the membrane transporters that maintain the intracellular milieu, in particular its electrolyte composition. Each class of efficient cause can be modelled as a relational diagram in the form of a mapping in graph-theoretic form, and a minimal model of a self-manufacturing system that is closed to efficient causation can be constructed from these three mappings using the formalism of relational biology. This fabrication-assembly or (F,A)-system serves as an alternative to Robert Rosen's replicative metabolism-repair or (M,R)-system, which has been notoriously problematic to realise in terms of real biochemical processes. A key feature of the model is the explicit incorporation of formal cause, which arrests the infinite regress that plagues all relational models of the cell. The (F,A)-system is extended into a detailed relational model of the self-manufacturing cell that has a clear biochemical realisation. This (F,A) cell model allows the interpretation and visualisation of concepts such as the metabolism and repair components of Rosen's (M,R)-system, John von Neumann's universal constructor, Howard Pattee's symbol-function split via the symbol-folding transformation, Marcello Barbieri's genotype-ribotype-phenotype ontology, and Tibor Gánti's chemoton.

An approach to the plant body: Assessing concrete and abstract aspects

The paper aims at proposing a representation of plants as individuals. The first section selects the population of plants to which this study is addressed. The second section describes the effective architecture of plants as modular systems with fixed and mobile elements, in other words, plants and their extensions. The third section presents how plants integrate the fixed and mobile modules into functional units through three areas of particular relevance to plant growth and development: nutrition, defence and pollination. Based on the tangible elements introduced in the previous sections, the fourth section presents the main issue of the proposal which is not apparent at first glance, namely, the local-global relationship in plants' architecture that determines their individuality as organisms. Finally, in the conclusion, we issue the challenge of developing a collective presentation of plants which satisfies their complementary dimension.