Integrated-structure emergence and its mechanistic explanation

Santos, Gil C.

doi:10.1007/s11229-020-02594-3

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Paoletti (2020) [98] characterizes emergence as partial and qualified dependence of the emergent entities on the entities in their emergence bases. Santos (2021) [99] characterizes it in terms of a relation of both partial dependence and partial independence (the latter being conceived in terms of a relative irreducibility or autonomy) between a given entity (the putative "emergent") and the entities with respect to which it may be said to be emergent (the "emergence base"). This emergence is enabled by downward causation occurring in addition to bottom-up causation (Noble 2012 [3], Ellis 2012 [57]).…”

Section: Reductionism and Holismmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ellis

2023

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Reductionism and Holismmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ellis

2023

Entropy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…That is, emergent structural attributes are attributes of specific macro-structured networks of transformative and interdependent relations between integrated system's parts. This can and must be explained via a relationaltransformative account of interlevel emergence (Santos, 2015(Santos, , 2021 as specific modes of the composition of their parts' transformative and structurally interdependent relations.…”

Section: Against the Universality Thesis Of Qmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fundamental Physics and (New-)Mechanistic Ontologies

Cordovil

2023

History, Philosophy and Theory of the Life Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to Kuhlmann & Glennan, fundamental physics and New Mechanicism do “not fit well together” (Kuhlmann and Glennan, Euro J Phil Sci 4:338, 2014). For two main reasons: (1) Quantum mechanics (QM) challenges the hypothesis that there are objects with definite properties that are related by local causal interactions; (2) since mechanisms are composed of lower-lever mechanisms, then if in fundamental physics the existence of mechanisms can be questioned, and if macroscopic mechanisms supervene on fundamental physics entities and processes, then fundamental physics can even undermine mechanistic ontology and its explanatory ambition.In their paper, Kuhlmann & Glennan tried to argue that the problem of the compatibilisation between fundamental physics and New Mechanicism can be partially addressed since, on the one hand, the quantum decoherence hypothesis allows to defend that the universal validity of quantum mechanics does not undermine New Mechanicism ontological and explanatory claims as they occur within in classical domains. And on the other hand, it is possible to offer a non-classical mechanistic explanation of certain kinds of quantum phenomena.This paper aims to argue that there has always been a problematic relationship between mechanical philosophy and fundamental physics throughout the history of physics. Therefore, in part, the challenges posed by QM to mechanicism are not new; nevertheless, mechanicism prevailed throughout the history of physics. On the other hand, I also aim to argue that although fundamental physics may not be compatible with New Mechanicism, that should not imply a rejection of mechanistic ontology for reasons other than the quantum decoherence hypothesis.

show abstract

“…Indeed, if reduction is a real unilateral or asymmetric relation between a reducing and a reduced term, microstructuralism can only be coherently defined as the view that all properties of a system are fully produced or determined by -thereby being fully explainable or reducible to -the properties and capacities that each part instantiates independently of being a part of that very system. Microstructuralism thus implies the notion that any system is micro-determined by the intrinsic or system-independent properties of its parts (Santos 2020). This is why one can make sense of the idea that parts can carry on their fundamental properties and dispositions, despite some transformations in their global structural organizations.…”

Section: Characterising Protein Microstructuralismmentioning

confidence: 99%

A relational-constructionist account of protein macrostructure and function

2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the foundational problems of biochemistry concerns the conceptualisation of the relationship between the composition, structure and function of macromolecules like proteins. Part of the recent philosophical literature displays a reductionist bias, that is, the endorsement of a form of microstructuralism mirroring an out-dated biochemical conceptualisation. We shall argue that such microstructuralist approaches are ultimately committed to a potentialist form of micro-predeterminism whereby the macrostructure and function of proteins is accounted for solely in terms of the intrinsic properties and potentialities of the components of the primary structure as if they were selfcontained or essentially immutable entities. We shall instead suggest that a conceptualisation of the relationship between proteins' composition, structure and function consistent with contemporary biochemical practice should account also for the causal role of the cellular, organismal and environmental relations in protein development. The analysis of the folding process we propose suggests that microstructure-laden reductionist approaches are ontologically indefensible. Rather than a potentialist form of micro-predeterminism, our

show abstract

Integrated-structure emergence and its mechanistic explanation

Cited by 9 publications

References 60 publications

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

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

Fundamental Physics and (New-)Mechanistic Ontologies

A relational-constructionist account of protein macrostructure and function

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About