List, Just wanted to note that I'm having second thoughts about the idea that decay is not an end!
But I'll keep it at least somewhat short because Jerry LR Chandler's post looks interesting. (I read some things at http://www.hyle.org/ (philosophy of chemistry) a few years ago, including something on chemical symbols. If anybody thinks that the subject lacks philosophical interest, that's one place to find some, though he probably knows of others.) Now, I said that decay might be considered a kind of "material end," a telic aspect of the material cause, but that it's not really a final cause. I lost sight of the fact "material cause" should not be considered synonymous with "physical matter". *Correlations, NOT equations*: momenta & forces ----------------- efficient cause -- forces, dynamics, mechanics (rest) mass, internal power --------- material cause -- physical matter, chemistry energy, power ------------------------ final cause ----- life internally balanced momenta & forces -- formal cause --- intelligent life Now, I see little reason that the sun's radiating of energy should not be considered an end, an effect which goes toward making the sun what it is, never mind whether it serves any living thing or not, and be the sun's radiative end soever resource-like and means-like from a biggest-picture viewpoint. Physically material non-living systems tend to have characteristic effects which are ways of decaying. The kinds of ends for which an organism is specialized & organized goes very much farther than that, it is true. Usually when we think of the "final cause," we often think of an organism's nature's elaborate dependences on functions homeostatic, exploitive, & reproductive. This sort of thing does go well beyond the sun's radiating. And, likewise, the kinds of "final states" and entelechies into which & on the basis of which an intelligence builds & evolves seem to go very much farther than physical non-living or even vegetable-level biological structures. Yet one would hardly deny that merely physical-material and merely biological things partake of those settled, final states that we call structures. So why deny that the sun has a characteristic effect? It's that we tend to think of the final cause in a "biocentric" way. So, the end stands out like a sore thumb from among efficient, matter, & form all considered merely physically -- the end seems higher than they. If we just said "actional cause" or something like that, instead of "end," it wouldn't seem automatically "higher." We don't tend to think of the formal cause in a biocentric, much less an intelligence-centric way. Yet sometimes some of us do think of form in that way. Although I've said that Peirce didn't see semiosis embodied in the nonhuman physical world, he did at least once say that _mind_ is at work in the growth of crystals and in the work of bees (I assume he meant the honeycombs -- the "language" of bees wasn't understood back then). He even says "...at any time, however, an element of pure chance survives and will remain until the world becomes an absolutely perfect, rational, and symmetrical system, in which Mind is at last crystallized in the infinitely distant future" (CP: 6.33). (Incidentally, note that Peirce says "infinitely distant future.") If we think of the causes in a human way, we think of (1) decisions & efforts, (2) means & resources, (3) ends, aims, & (4) solidifications, confirmations (epistemic or ontic), etc. A structure can be a living, intelligent record, an evolvable stability of tensions releasable and renovatable in agency. The "sore thumb" issue pretty much fades. Likewise the "sore thumb" issue fades if one considers the causes as associated with successive levels -- (1) forces (2) matter (3) function (4) knowledge. Of course, it's hard to consider knowledge as a cause by itself, without function, and there's no reason to regard it that way, any more than one would consider function without matter or dynamics. But to bring into relief what knowledge brings to the causal table, just consider the roles of knowledge & expectations in a market. However, I'd also note (going in the other direction), that the study of dyanamic & mechanical systems seems to uncover a level at which decay doesn't occur (e.g., a pure quantum system), and where the ends would instead be, I suppose, various ways of conserving quantities in interactions. 1. mechanics, forces (variational principles (& inverse-varational processes?)) --> conservation (efficient causes emphasized, sensitive dependence on initial conditions) 2. thermodynamics, matter (stochastic processes) --> decay (material causes emphasized, "averaging-out" or "steadying" dependence on intermediate-stage conditions) 3. life (information processes) --> growth (final causes emphasized, corrective & perfective dependence on resultant conditions) 4. evolution & intelligent life (inference processes) --> growth & decay, recycling & retaining, ongoingly renovated & occasionally redesigned "sinks" (formal causes emphasized, logical & confirmational dependence on after-effects, side effects -- evidentiary & sign conditions) Best, Ben Udell --- Message from peirce-l forum to subscriber archive@mail-archive.com
