> "The problem I had in mind was that of getting clear about the very nature of causation in biology. It differs from the problem of causation in the physical sciences. Organisms manifest a fluid, integral, harmonizing sort of causation that is more like a play of the multi-dimensional reasons for things than a set of one-dimensional mechanical interactions. It is more like the rich interplay of meaning in an unfolding poem than a rigid syntax or logic."
I don't think causality differs across different academic disciplines, and of course nature is indifferent to the political divisions found within academia. E.g., the life of a star is rather similar to the life of a dog, in many ways - birth, development, death - and so why this desire to draw this fundamental divide between 'living' and 'non-living' systems? Yes, there's the transfer of information from one generation to the next in living systems, but that's only possible because cells manage to maintain their physical integrity.
Some people might think this means everything is dead, mechanical, and boring - but one could just as easily adopt the philosophy that the entire universe is alive, dynamic and interesting.
I don't think causality differs across different academic disciplines, and of course nature is indifferent to the political divisions found within academia. E.g., the life of a star is rather similar to the life of a dog, in many ways - birth, development, death - and so why this desire to draw this fundamental divide between 'living' and 'non-living' systems? Yes, there's the transfer of information from one generation to the next in living systems, but that's only possible because cells manage to maintain their physical integrity.
Some people might think this means everything is dead, mechanical, and boring - but one could just as easily adopt the philosophy that the entire universe is alive, dynamic and interesting.