lecture. Let me start with analogy. Only humans can construct machines, the
artefacts consisting of interrelated parts. But the crucial property of machines is
their human purpose. Design of machines is based on the restrictions which we as
humans give to the nature, say to natural laws, the boundary conditions. These
boundary conditions are imposed to laws of physics to get such a functional construction, which will have a desired scope. All our designs have their purpose in
contributing to particular practical requirement of our life. Now, we can switch our
sight from analysing of the nature to the designing of the nature. From our position
as humans, which is on the top level on the complexity scale, everything below this
level must have its purpose for us. This point of view that everything in the nature
must have its purpose is known already from Aristotle who has called it teleology
(sέko1, purpose, scope).
The question is whether teleological principle is only a matter of humanity, or it
is a principle of more general significance. If we pass from machines to living
beings, then there are not mechanical parts and the overall construction, but the
organs that have their function, and chemical background that supports and enables
this function. More simply, let us take enzymes and their biological function.
Enzymes were formed as a consequence of the evolutionary pressure, i.e. the
boundary conditions in such a way that they can play particular role in living
organism.
Now we have the interplay between two complexity levels, biological one that
requires function for its existence, and the chemical level, which enables this
function if it is suppressed from the upper (biological) level. Does it mean that
lower complexity levels are in teleological sense determined by particular purposes
on the higher complexity level? This is not the naïve question because the main
stream in the contemporary research in chemistry is focused on the
structure-function relationship. Chemists have to synthesize, to design new substances whose structure would enable function, for instance in medical treatment.
Many doctoral theses in organic chemisrty are entitled such as “structure function
relationship between….”. However, the chemists are not aware that the “function”
is not a matter of chemistry, but rather it belongs to the discipline on the higher
level of complexity. For instance, the function of haemoglobin is to transfer oxygen
to cells, but this is not the chemical question, rather it is question of biology.
Chemical question is not this function but the molecular structure of haemoglobin,
the reaction of this molecule with oxygen or with other molecules. Here we have
functional and non-functional explanation [3]. In this way, chemistry is on borderline with biology. The same ontological problem appears with designing of new
technological materials, which could have their either chemical or functional
explanation.
We as humans adjust boundary conditions to chemical laws to accommodate the
nature for us. Is it a variant of the antropic principle, which states that the evolution
of universe inevitably led to the appearance of intelligent beings?
As I have discussed in the first lecture, the relation between complexity levels
are determined by causality. Structures on the lower level of complexity are
“causes” for the behaviour of the entities on the higher level, not oppositely. Atomic
140
13 Teleology
artefacts consisting of interrelated parts. But the crucial property of machines is
their human purpose. Design of machines is based on the restrictions which we as
humans give to the nature, say to natural laws, the boundary conditions. These
boundary conditions are imposed to laws of physics to get such a functional construction, which will have a desired scope. All our designs have their purpose in
contributing to particular practical requirement of our life. Now, we can switch our
sight from analysing of the nature to the designing of the nature. From our position
as humans, which is on the top level on the complexity scale, everything below this
level must have its purpose for us. This point of view that everything in the nature
must have its purpose is known already from Aristotle who has called it teleology
(sέko1, purpose, scope).
The question is whether teleological principle is only a matter of humanity, or it
is a principle of more general significance. If we pass from machines to living
beings, then there are not mechanical parts and the overall construction, but the
organs that have their function, and chemical background that supports and enables
this function. More simply, let us take enzymes and their biological function.
Enzymes were formed as a consequence of the evolutionary pressure, i.e. the
boundary conditions in such a way that they can play particular role in living
organism.
Now we have the interplay between two complexity levels, biological one that
requires function for its existence, and the chemical level, which enables this
function if it is suppressed from the upper (biological) level. Does it mean that
lower complexity levels are in teleological sense determined by particular purposes
on the higher complexity level? This is not the naïve question because the main
stream in the contemporary research in chemistry is focused on the
structure-function relationship. Chemists have to synthesize, to design new substances whose structure would enable function, for instance in medical treatment.
Many doctoral theses in organic chemisrty are entitled such as “structure function
relationship between….”. However, the chemists are not aware that the “function”
is not a matter of chemistry, but rather it belongs to the discipline on the higher
level of complexity. For instance, the function of haemoglobin is to transfer oxygen
to cells, but this is not the chemical question, rather it is question of biology.
Chemical question is not this function but the molecular structure of haemoglobin,
the reaction of this molecule with oxygen or with other molecules. Here we have
functional and non-functional explanation [3]. In this way, chemistry is on borderline with biology. The same ontological problem appears with designing of new
technological materials, which could have their either chemical or functional
explanation.
We as humans adjust boundary conditions to chemical laws to accommodate the
nature for us. Is it a variant of the antropic principle, which states that the evolution
of universe inevitably led to the appearance of intelligent beings?
As I have discussed in the first lecture, the relation between complexity levels
are determined by causality. Structures on the lower level of complexity are
“causes” for the behaviour of the entities on the higher level, not oppositely. Atomic
140
13 Teleology