There is an asymettry here. in organisms you say "final cause is the
idea that the system is closed to efficient cause (all enzymes are
made by other enzymes)", you don't say "final cause = (would be
that all enzymes come from the action of other enzymes. This is what
I think is imposible".
So presumably you see some enzymes (some time) coming from another
source, namely chemicals in the environment (non-enzymes - no
meaning). Thus at some stage (possibly more than once in history)
chemicals (from material cause) brought into a new context (either
an organism or the mutual context of other such chemicals) acts like
an enzyme on other chemicals and enzymes.
Why can't you contemplate the same with the software analogy?
Paraphrasing myself: "...some instructions (some time) coming from
another source, namely data in the environment (non-instructions -
no meaning). Thus at some stage (possibly more than once in
the future) data (from material cause) brought into a new context
(either a sofware-organism or the mutual context of other such data)
acts like an instruction on other data and instructions.".
In an exactly analagous way you seem to forget that instructions could
come from data and not just other instructions (although not usually)
in a suitably rich environment, by 'accident'. Just as enzymes could
come from chemicals and not just other enzymes (although not usually)
in a suitably rich environment, by 'accident'.
> In self-modifying code, one part of an algorythm will be responsible for
> over-writing some other part of the algorythm. If you try to entail every
> program instruction this way, I believe you will get an infinite regress
> of needing more and more statements to do the entailing.
This is just not the case. At any instant this is true, but not over
any period of time (as for enzymes). This is, of course, NOT a usual
situation since our progams are mostly designed analytically by us
for specific purposes, where we want a degree of surety about the
outcome.
> Even if you could get it down to just one instruction being the
> efficient cause for a computation that results in a number that can
> be used as another instruction, there has to be a second
> instruction to place that result in the appropriate place in the
> computer memory to be considered as an instruction. This, I
> believe, guarantees the infinite regress for computers (all formal
> systems). It takes the additional instruction to interpret the
> result of the computation. Therefor no finite number of
> instructions can be self-producing.
1. Software life could not evelove in a vacuum, totally
self-creating (as life could not). It needs a suitably rich
environment of a lot of odd data and instructions floating around,
just as lif needs a rich environment with chemicals, catalysts,
etc. floating around.
> In biology, there isn't the need for "the extra interpretation
> instruction". Whether a product molecule acts as an enzyme
> (efficient cause) is based on just the laws of physics and
> chemistry and what the molecule IS.
Whether a product molecule acts as an enzyme is based on its CONTEXT
and the laws of physics and chemistry - this determines what the
molecule IS.
Wheter a bit patter acts as an instruction is based on its CONTEXT
and the laws of the software environment - this determines what the
bit pattern IS.
If you mean something else (e.g. metaphysical) about "IS", please
specify. Both have meaning from their context.
> Therefor, it is at least conceptually possible for a non-formal
> system to be completely closed to efficient cause (have final cause
> within the system). This is because the "meaning" of the stuff is
> retained.
Therefore, it is at least conceptually possible for a software system
to be completely closed to efficient cause (have final cause within
the system). This is because the "meaning" of the stuff is retained.
> In a formal system (in which meaning has been stripped), you can
> never get efficient cause to close...you always need extra
> unentailed structure (code) to compensate for the stripped
> meaning.
I think I have shown that in the sense this is not true of organisms
it is also not true of potential software-organisms.
----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Edmonds
Centre for Policy Modelling,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Aytoun Building,
Aytoun Street, Manchester, M1 3GH. UK.
Tel: +44 161 247 6479 Fax: +44 161 247 6802
http://bruce.edmonds.name/bme_home.html