Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Thomas Nagel and the “Quartium Quid”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Since Aristotle it has been common to refer to intelligent agency as a third cause in addition to law and chance.  The Philosopher obviously spoke Greek, but his concept has come to be known by the Latin “tertium quid” the “third thing.”  Over at Witherspoon William Carroll reviews atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.  According to Carroll, Nagel believes he has found a Quartium Quid, a “fourth thing”  Carroll writes:

Nagel’s arguments that consciousness is not reducible to material phenomena, that there is an objective order of value, and that we do have knowledge of the world are all dialectical. He asks us to recognize, on reflection, their obvious truth. If we accept as a starting point a worldview that has reductive materialism as a first principle, we will not be persuaded by Nagel. One of the benefits of Nagel’s book is that he calls into question this first principle and asks us to consider anew an adherence only to material causes.

In examining possible explanations for the origin of life, Nagel thinks that to say the process was the result of chance events or “directionless physical law” challenges credulity. He also rejects what he calls “creationism,” the view that the origin and development of living things is the result of specific intentional acts of a divine agent. He thinks that it is properly a scientific project to explain the origin of life and of consciousness. The contemporary natural sciences, however, cannot adequately offer such explanations, and when combined with materialist reductionism make claims that are false.

Nagel opts for another possibility, what he calls “natural teleological laws governing the development of organisms over time.” He thinks this “nonpurposive teleology” is different from the other alternatives: “chance, creationism, and directionless physical law.” Naturalistic teleology means that there are organizational and developmental principles that are irreducible parts of the natural order, yet “not the result of intentional or purposive influence by anyone.” The natural order that is the source of unicellular organisms and eventually of conscious, intelligent agents capable of value judgments has to be different from what is described by materialist reductionism.

Is Nagel’s fourth thing a real possibility or mere atheist whistling past the graveyard?

Comments
My defense of (3) rests on the idea that there aren't any laws that govern living things -- that's the central contention. More specifically: living things are, of course, constrained by physical and chemical laws, but there aren't any specifically biological laws, and the constraints are "loose" enough that the specific, historical patterns of biological diversity cannot be predicted from the laws of nature alone (nor, I think, be predicted by anything). So my contention is pretty much the opposite of the idea that the emergence of life was itself a law-governed event, contra Eric's interpretation. Finally, then:
It most cases it seems to be a desperate leap away from a purposeful origin and its uncomfortable implications. And a leap away from the evidence.
It may be a leap -- I won't argue the point here, since I'm fully aware that 'naturalistic teleology' is not so much a worked-out theory as a proposal for a theory. I don't think of it as "desperate" and I'm curious as to why you think so. In any event, I don't see why "purposeful origin" would have any "uncomfortable implications" at all.Kantian Naturalist
October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
12:56 PM
12
12
56
PM
PDT
Eric,
It is a massive stretch. A stretch without empirical support and against all experience to date. Further, where did the so-called “autocatalytic set” come from?
I think this is a good challenge for the sort of view I'm proposing here. At this point, we can identify a real issue at work here: whether it is a "stretch" from an autocatalytic set enclosed within a semi-permeable membrane to a genuinely autopoeitic system. If we're to make much more progress towards mutual understanding, it would help me to understand what you think the latter has that the former doesn't have. As for the origins of the autocatalytic sets themselves -- or more precisely, the properties of matter that underlie the capacity for such sets to form -- the question I'm interested in is this: given the basic laws of physics in this universe, how likely is life of some sort or other? The lower that probability, the more reasonable it will seem. reasonable to invoke intelligent agency as responsible for abiogenesis. But I don't think that probability is low at all. Of course, it is one thing to assign a low (or high) probability to abiogenesis, given our universe, and quite another to assign a probability to the existence of our universe altogether. Here I simply think that it really doesn't make any sense to assign any probability to the existence of our universe, low or high -- we have no way of making any the relevant estimates. When it comes to the origins of the universe, empirical knowledge is of no help to us, and it's going to be a leap of faith one way or the other.Kantian Naturalist
October 27, 2012
October
10
Oct
27
27
2012
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
I suppose, where I’m coming from, it’s not really so much of a stretch to suppose that autopoietic systems could emerge by enclosing an autocatalytic set within a semi-permeable membrane.
It is a massive stretch. A stretch without empirical support and against all experience to date. Further, where did the so-called "autocatalytic set" come from? Crickets . . . ----- Further, if there is some 'law' that gives rise to biology, what accounts for the incredible diversity of biological form and function? It certainly can't be determined by law. So is the 'law' for some inexplicable reason only applicable to the first cell, at which point the law ceases to operate and some other process takes over (pure chance or some kind of Darwinian evolution)? In addition, why would this 'law' have acted billions of years ago, but never be seen in operation today? The idea that biology arises from either (i) physics and chemistry themselves, or (ii) some as-yet-undiscovered law (that, upon inspection, apparently only operates at some points in time and only at very specific stages of the life process) is without any empirical or logical justification. It most cases it seems to be a desparate leap away from a purposeful origin and its uncomfortable implications. And a leap away from the evidence.Eric Anderson
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
09:55 PM
9
09
55
PM
PDT
The problem here is whether 'naturalistic teleology' collapses into reductive naturalism or design realism. Rather than treat naturalistic teleology as a quartium quid, it is a tertium quid. The first two, "chance" and "necessity" are not different ontologies (contra Peirce, maybe?) but tightly integrated aspects of a single ontology, Epicureanism, or reductive naturalism. (It must be remembered here that it was Epicurus' addition of chance to the deterministic system of Democritus that saved atomism from many of Aristotle's criticisms -- just not all of them!) So here, then, are the ontological options: (1) reductive naturalism (Epicureanism, "chance" + "necessity") (2) design realism (that there exists some non-human intelligent agent whose intentions played a causal role in the emergence of (i)the universe; (ii) life; (ii) body-plans; (iv) consciousness; (v) rationality; (vi) all of the above. [Three notes: (a) thus specified, design realism is fully consistent with naturalism and thus contributes no epistemic support to theism; (b) how exactly this causal role was played is not easily answered, if the causal role cannot be specified without specifying the capacities of the designer; (c) the open-endedness of that list, esp. (vi) there, is a real problem for design theory -- the conjecture must be specified enough to permit refutation.] (3) naturalistic teleology (self-organization theory, autopoeisis theory -- cf. recent work by Stuart Kauffman, Francisco Varela, Kirschner and Gerhart's The Plausibility of Life, Evan Thompson's Mind in Life, etc.) The contention: that (3) reduces to (2) or to (1). The response: whether (2) reduces to (2) is a difficult question, and I'm not yet convinced I have a really good argument there. But here's why (3) does not reduce to (1). (Aka "why I dislike Dawkins so much".) Reductive naturalism depicts nature as a system of laws. Laws are rampant in physics and in chemistry. But biology, since it is the study of living things, is therefore the science of immanent-purposive systems, systems that are teleologically organized. (Perhaps (3) reduces to (2) if immanently purposive systems are best explained by a transcendent purposive system?) So the question, can (3) be reduced to (1), can be considered in terms of two different sub-questions: (a) are there laws of biology? and (b) can biology be reduced to physics and chemistry? But there are no laws of biology, because teleological systems have histories, and there cannot be law about history. (Notice, also, that according to Darwinism, species are not generals but individuals, to use those terms in their Scholastic sense, since populations are individuals, metaphysically speaking. Here's a difficult question I haven't yet figured out how to answer: is it consistent to be a realist about teleology without being a realist about universals or generals? I think what I want to say here is that species are not kinds, but that life itself is a kind.) So: there are no laws of biology. Does biology reduce to physics and chemistry? Here too I think we have every right to be completely skeptical, because all the successful cases of intertheoretic reduction (the reduction of one theory to another) that I can think of are part of the history of physics and chemistry themselves. To whatever extent intertheoretic reduction have been successful in chemistry and physics, there's room to be dubious whether biology reduces to physics and chemistry. (Interestingly enough, it's also not really clear that chemistry reduces to physics, and it may be that there's actually very little, if any, reduction between theories in general.) Of course, that biology does not reduce to physics-chemistry is precisely what (2) and (3) have in common. So the question there is whether the irreducibility of biology to physics/chemistry is best explained by the existence of some intelligent agent, or by something else. I suppose, where I'm coming from, it's not really so much of a stretch to suppose that autopoietic systems could emerge by enclosing an autocatalytic set within a semi-permeable membrane.Kantian Naturalist
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Axel - Yes that is it a brand new term :-)Andre
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT
When I was young living in a communist country I remember seeing in a bookstore a book titled “The intelligence of the matter” pleading for the Darwinian evolutionary view of the world. I think that this book title helps us to get a clear understanding that there are two fundamental belief systems for the origins in general and the origin of life and the material world in particular. A. There are those that believe in the intelligence of the matter. B. There are those that believe in the intelligence of a Creator There is no other way. It seems that any attempt of an “in-between” path can be quickly classified of either a real A. or a B. of the two alternatives. Which one of the two belief systems can resists the inquiries of the reason? In my view A. has absolutely no chanceInVivoVeritas
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT
'So naturalism is false… supernaturalism is also false…. but something in between might be true? What is it called? not so super supernaturalism? more than natural naturalism? If you ask me this sounds all relative…. 'Just so..pernaturalism, Andre?Axel
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
'Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.' - William J Murray. William J Murray, that is a brilliantly droll epigram! I believe I've seen ones of similar quality from you before on here.Axel
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
12:12 PM
12
12
12
PM
PDT
Is Nagel’s fourth thing a real possibility or mere atheist whistling past the graveyard?
Ah, yes. The as-yet-undiscovered extra law out there that will somehow account for the origin and diversity of life. Because he isn't willing to accept the possibility that life may have been designed by an intelligent agent. We've been down this road many times. It's nonsense.Eric Anderson
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
KF@3. That is exactly what I thought when I read that.Barry Arrington
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
In one of the first conversations I had when I joined Uncommon Descent, I tried defending the view that self-organization theory is a 'quartum quid' (not the phrase I used) becomes it explains the reality of teleology. I've been reading Nagel's book, and I'm sympathetic to much of what he says -- though not all -- and I think his arguments leave much to be desired. (For example, I think that the Leiter & Weisberg review in The Nation was profoundly unsympathetic -- but that Nagel did himself no favors by opening himself up to that response.) But heck, I'm always game for the adversarial camaraderie of philosophical disputation, and would be quite happy to return to the discussion of whether "naturalistic teleology" (Nagel's phrase, and not one I'm happy with) reduces to "chance" and "necessity".Kantian Naturalist
October 26, 2012
October
10
Oct
26
26
2012
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
Re:
“natural teleological laws governing the development of organisms over time.”
That is little more than another way of saying the laws and circumstances of the cosmos were programmed to produce life. In short, it is a cosmological front loading design hyp. KFkairosfocus
October 25, 2012
October
10
Oct
25
25
2012
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
So naturalism is false... supernaturalism is also false.... but something in between might be true? What is it called? not so super supernaturalism? more than natural naturalism? If you ask me this sounds all relative....Andre
October 25, 2012
October
10
Oct
25
25
2012
11:10 PM
11
11
10
PM
PDT
Anything is a "real possibility" in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.William J Murray
October 25, 2012
October
10
Oct
25
25
2012
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply