Polanyi and Ontogenetic Emergence

_{Andrew Sibley

October 18, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have been studying the concept of emergence, especially from Arthur Peacocke, and Michael Polanyi recently. Peacocke was very much influenced by Polanyi, but instead has developed a monistic approach to reality within an emergentist-naturalistic-panentheistic perspective. Peacocke speaks about the process of evolution having ‘creativity’ as does the emergentist process philosopher Ian Barbour who suggested that there is some ‘design’ in the system of evolution.

Polanyi believed in an irreducible hierarchy in nature, but one that has arisen through ‘ontogenetic emergence.’ This process was believed to have been driven forward by a ‘creative agent’ or director. (Polanyi (1962) Personal Knowledge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 393-395 (ontogeny – the development of what exists – as a child develops from an embryo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontogeny )

Compares perhaps with Darwin’s concluding remarks “There is grandeur in this view of life . . . having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that . . . from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”

Polanyi perhaps saw something mysterious, and unknowable, (i.e.tacit knowledge) in how human beings have arisen through an emergent evolutionary process. Steve Meyer in ‘Signature in the cell’ also makes some very interesting comments about Polanyi and the sequence of nucleotides in the genetic code not being physically determined.

I would like to ask some questions here for discussion.

How did Polanyi see mind acting on the evolutionary process?

How would we view Polanyi’s position involving ‘ontogenetic emergence’ directed by a ‘creative agent’ ?

From this, would ID proponents see ID as part of emergence or as an alternative to emergence?

Comments

Hello Heinrich, - Beginning with "law:" The word "law" is usually either used to describe a statement of cause and effect or observation which is universally true or it is used as a description of certain patterns. When we speak of the "law of gravity," we are referring to either a specific universally true statement of attraction or we are referring to the mathematical description of such attraction. When speaking of chemical or physical reactions occurring according to a certain law, we are describing an effect which is the result of specific material/physical/measurable properties of the matter and energy involved in the reaction; responsible for the ending pattern. That's why in reference to the cause of certain patterns, I have defined "law" as "mathematical descriptions of regularities that emerge from the physical/material/measurable properties of matter and energy." - Moving on to "organization:" A spatial arrangement is merely a pattern in any dimension. An organized pattern is one which is not merely ordered -- defined by law/regularity such as the patterns of planets orbiting the sun, crystals repetitiously arranged, or a vortex. Ordered patterns emerge from the physical/material/measurable properties of matter and energy, whereas organized patterns are not defined by such properties of the materials utilized to generate the organization. If we stopped here though, any statistically random pattern would qualify as "organization." However there are patterns which are not merely "ordered" (defined by law) and yet are also not random in the sense of lacking correlation. These organized, non-ordered, yet also non-random patterns are usually arranged according to an independent non-random scheme or diagram (which is why they lack "randomness.") Here is a quote from Jeffrey S. Wicken, “The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, 77 (April 1979): 353, 349-65, which will hopefully help explain the basics of "organization:" " ‘Organized’ systems are to be carefully distinguished from ‘ordered’ systems. Neither kind of system is ‘random;’ but whereas ordered systems are generated according to simple algorithms and therefore lack complexity, organized systems must be assembled element by element according to an external ‘wiring diagram’ with a high information content.” Ordered patterns arise from the internal properties of the material utilized which produces *regularities* when those materials are present (and that is why order is described as simple mathematical descriptions or algorithms), whereas organized patterns do not arise from the properties of the material used and that is why an external diagram or scheme is needed in order to describe and generate the placement of the material -- the pattern of the material. That is the difference between "ordered" and "organized." Order can occur as a result of "self-ordering phenomenon" since it can be generated from the properties of the materials within the ordered system, however organization must be caused by something external to the organized system since it is not defined by laws of the materials utilized within the organized system. - And now we move on to "functionally specified:" How can we tell if a pattern is indeed non-random? You can put it through statistical tests and if a certain amount of order is detected, there is most likely a law (that mathematical equation or simple algorithm which produces the regularity) which can account for the pattern. Also, one can look for a correlation, since randomness is indeed the lack of correlation. This is where "specified" comes in. A specified event, according to Dr. Dembski, is an event which can be formulated as an independent pattern. A specified event is correlated, independent of the event, with its formulation as a pattern. Because there exists independent correlation, randomness is not the best explanation. Since we are dealing with independence, we can describe a specified pattern using a simple mathematical function, where f(pattern)=event; the event is independently formulated as the pattern. As you can see, ordered systems are specified, and thus non-random, since f(mathematical equation for gravity)=pattern resulting from effects of gravity. However, non-ordered systems can also be specified where f(blueprint)=pattern resulting from the implementation of that blueprint or f(specific arrangement of parts)=effect which contributes to a larger organization and it is this last type of specified event which can be seen as "functional." Of course, one can say that puddles are specified since we can say that f(shape of hole in the ground)=shape of the water which fills the hole. As long as the shape of the hole in the ground is indeed independent from the water which fills it, then the critic seems to have a point. But, that is why merely having a specified pattern can not allow one to jump to a design inference. Just as merely having a complex pattern can not allow one to jump to a design inference. The pattern (event) must be either both complex (highly improbable) and specified, or in the case of what I am now discussing, functionally specified in order to arrive at a design inference. Adding the term "functionally" to "specified" merely lets us know that the organization is functional in the sense of contributing to a larger whole by producing an effect which which would not exist if the organization where to change. IOW, the functional effect is dependent on the specific organization. This definition is similar to the Merriam-Webster definition #3 of function: "any of a group of related actions contributing to a larger action." - So, having explained each piece, let's put it all together to define functional organization: "a functionally specified spatial arrangement which is not defined by law — mathematical descriptions of regularities that emerge from the physical/material/measurable properties of matter and energy." - Which brings us to the point that I made previously: "Since functional organization is not defined by law or best explained by chance there is no reason to even postulate that only law+chance absent intelligence will produce such arrangement. Furthermore, no one has provided any theory or tests to support the idea of such functional organization arising from law+chance absent intelligence. - So, again, I ask the question: "if chance isn’t the best explanation on account of highly improbable functional specificity (non-random correlation) and if neither the physical properties of the material in question nor mathematical description of regularity define the pattern emerging from that material (as in an essay or DNA), and if those types of patterns are routinely observed to be the result of systems utilizing foresight, then where should we begin our investigation into the cause of such patterns?"CJYman_{October 19, 2009
October
10
Oct
19
19
2009
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

CJYman - can you be clearer about what you mean by "functional organization"? Your parenthetical comment is rather opaque to me, I'm afraid.Heinrich_{October 19, 2009
October
10
Oct
19
19
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

Nakashima and Oramus, A system of randomness and law absent intelligence will indeed coalesce into local patterns of order -- it is merely the laws of the system which cause that order/regularity -- however law and randomness absent intelligence don't produce functional organization (a functionally specified spatial arrangement which is not defined by law — mathematical descriptions of regularities that emerge from the physical/material/measurable properties of matter and energy.) Since functional organization is not defined by law or best explained by chance there is no reason to even postulate that only law+chance absent intelligence will produce such arrangement. Furthermore, no one has provided any theory or tests to support the idea of such functional organization arising from law+chance absent intelligence. The best attempt to try to explain such organization so far is to throw vast excess of probabilistic resources at the problem in order to "allow" chance to do the dirty work of generating these patterns that are routinely observed to require intelligent systems utilizing their foresight. However, along with multiple universes there comes no non-arbitrary cutoff point as to what infinite probabilistic resources are to be used to explain. Infinite probabilistic resources can be used to explain away every pattern in existence and thus science stops since no further explanation is required. Even the infamous camera found on a planet on the other side of the universe, those hypothetical radio signals from ETI, and the orbit of the planets around the sun, and the arrangement of crystals could be explained by chance if infinite probabilistic resources are given. But if chance isn't the best explanation on account of highly improbable functional specificity (non-random correlation) and if neither the physical properties of the material in question nor mathematical description of regularity define the pattern emerging from that material (as in an essay or DNA), and if those types of patterns are routinely observed to be the result of systems utilizing foresight, then where should we begin our investigation into the cause of such patterns?CJYman_{October 19, 2009
October
10
Oct
19
19
2009
07:31 AM
7
07
31
AM
PDT}

Mr Oramus, Feedback loops. Attractors.Nakashima_{October 19, 2009
October
10
Oct
19
19
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT}

How does one rationally grasp the idea of randomness coalescing into order without reference to design? It can't be done, claims by EVO-DEVO proponents notwithstanding. IOW, emergence is only intelligible from a front-loading perspective.Oramus_{October 19, 2009
October
10
Oct
19
19
2009
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

Perhaps the staunchest supporter of the concept of emergence in evolutionary biology was Ernst Mayr. Indeed, he parted company with Will Provine on precisely this point: that evolution is distinguished from physics and chemistry in that levels of biological organization cannot be "reduced" to phenomena at "lower" levels. Furthermore, Mayr was quite explicit about what the "creative agent(s)" in evolutionary emergence is: it is the "engines of variation" (my own shorthand term for the 50+ processes listed here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html ), coupled with the various mechanisms of micro- and macroevolution, which bring about the emergence of virtually all of the overwhelming diversity of life on Earth. (Will Provine also doesn't like "reductionism" in biology, but for different reasons than Mayr. He doesn't like "emergence" because it smacks of Whitehead and Teilhard de Chardin, both of whom he views as fundamentally wrong-headed about evolution)Allen_MacNeill_{October 18, 2009
October
10
Oct
18
18
2009
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

Interesting . . . from Wikipedia: "In philosophy, emergence is often understood to be a much stronger claim about the etiology of a system's properties. An emergent property of a system, in this context, is one that is not a property of any component of that system, but is still a feature of the system as a whole. Nicolai Hartmann, one of the first modern philosophers to write on emergence, termed this categorial novum (new category). In religion, emergence grounds expressions of religious naturalism in which a sense of the sacred is perceived in the workings of entirely naturalistic processes by which more complex forms arise or evolve from simpler forms. Notable examples of a scientific understanding of emergent complexity that lead to a sense of the sacred include a 2006 essay titled 'The Sacred Emergence of Nature' by Ursula Goodenough and Terrence Deacon and a 2006 essay titled 'Beyond Reductionism: Reinventing the Sacred' by Stuart Kauffman."ellazimm_{October 18, 2009
October
10
Oct
18
18
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

I think emergence generally is an idea that theists and atheists use to describe the same things. It's just that theists think emergent phenomena are evidence of God and atheists think they "emerged" spontaneously. I say that ID should be friendly towards the idea of emergence, because it's essentially an admission by materialists of defeat in the search for a real material cause. As Napoleon once said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Now I don't consider atheists to be my "enemy" in the sense that Napoleon meant it of course. :D I have liked every atheist I've ever known personally. But it is a battle of ideas.tragic mishap_{October 18, 2009
October
10
Oct
18
18
2009
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply