Code biology and the problem of emergence.

It should now be recognized that codes are central to life and to understanding its more complex forms, including human culture. Recognizing the 'conventional' nature of codes provides solid grounds for rejecting efforts to reduce life to biochemistry and justifies according a place to semantics in life. The question I want to consider is whether this is enough. Focussing on Eigen's paradox of how a complex code could originate, I will argue that along with Barbieri's efforts to account for the origins of life based on the ribosome and then to account for the refined codes through a process of ambiguity reduction, something more is required. Barbieri has not provided an adequate account of emergence, or the basis for providing such an account. I will argue that Stanley Salthe has clarified to some extent the nature of emergence by conceptualizing it as the interpolation of new enabling constraints. Clearly, codes can be seen as enabling constraints. How this actually happens, though, is still not explained. Stuart Kauffman has grappled with this issue and shown that it radically challenges the assumptions of mainstream science going back to Newton. He has attempted to reintroduce real possibilities or potentialities into his ontology, and argued that radically new developments in nature are associated with realizing adjacent possibles. This is still not adequate. What is also involved, I will suggest, utilizing concepts developed by the French natural philosopher Gilbert Simondon, is 'transduction' as part of 'ontogenesis' of individuals in a process of 'individuation', that is, the emergence of 'individuals' from preindividual fields or milieux.

Chreods, homeorhesis and biofields: Finding the right path for science through Daoism.

C.H. Waddington's concepts of 'chreods' (canalized paths of development) and 'homeorhesis' (the tendency to return to a path), each associated with 'morphogenetic fields', were conceived by him as a contribution to complexity theory. Subsequent developments in complexity theory have largely ignored Waddington's work and efforts to advance it. Waddington explained the development of the concept of chreod as the influence on his work of Alfred North Whitehead's process philosophy, notably, the concept of concrescence as a self-causing process. Processes were recognized as having their own dynamics, rather than being explicable through their components or external agents. Whitehead recognized the tendency to think only in terms of such 'substances' as a bias of European thought, claiming in his own philosophy 'to approximate more to some strains of Indian, or Chinese, thought, than to western Asiatic, or European, thought.' Significantly, the theoretical biologist who comes closest to advancing Waddington's research program, also marginalized, is Mae-Wan Ho. Noting this bias, and embracing Whitehead's and Waddington's efforts to free biology from assumptions dominating Western thought to advance an ontology of creative causal processes, I will show how later developments of complexity theory, most importantly, Goodwin's work on oscillations, temporality and morphology, Vitiello's dissipative quantum brain dynamics, Salthe's work on hierarchy theory, biosemiotics inspired by Peirce and von Uexküll, Robert Rosen's work on anticipatory systems, together with category theory and biomathics, can augment while being augmented by Waddington's work, while further advancing Mae-Wan Ho's radical research program with its quest to understand the reality of consciousness.

The Centrality of Philosophical Anthropology to (a Future) Environmental Ethics.

While environmental ethics has successfully established itself in philosophy, as presently conceived it is still largely irrelevant to grappling the global ecological crisis because, as Alasdair MacIntyre has argued, ethical philosophy itself is in grave disorder. MacIntyre's historically oriented recovery of virtue ethics is defended, but it is argued that even MacIntyre was too constrained by received assumptions to overcome this disorder. As he himself realized, his ideas need to be integrated and defended through philosophical anthropology. However, it is suggested that current defenders of philosophical anthropology have not done it justice. To appreciate its importance it is necessary accept that we are cultural beings in which the core of culture is the conception of what are humans. This is presupposed not only in thought but in social practices and forms of life. This was understood by Aristotle, but modernity has been straightjacketed by the Seventeenth Century scientific revolution and Hobbes' philosophical anthropology, identifying knowledge and with techno-science and eliminating any place for questioning this conception of humans. The only conception of humanity that could successfully challenge and replace Hobbes' philosophical anthropology, it is argued, is Hegel's philosophical anthropology reformulated and developed on naturalistic foundations. This involves subordinating science to a reconceived humanities with a fundamentally different role accorded to ethics, placing it at the center of social life, politics and economics and at the centre of the struggle to transform culture and society to create an ecologically sustainable civilization.

Editorial.

Preparing this ambitious Special Issue has challenged everyone involved: authors, reviewers, and guest editors. The editors solicited contributions from many leading figures in a broad array of scientific and philosophical disciplines, with emphasis on phenomenological approaches to philosophy (see Section I). The motivating force was the conviction that if we could find a viable bridge for the gap between the "two cultures"(1) of science and philosophy, fundamental problems in each camp could be addressed more fruitfully than ever before and a new kind of science be born. We believe the unprecedented cross-fertilization of ideas from this initiative may furnish seeds from which that new, better integrated, and more effective approach to science may arise. This Special Issue consists of forty papers. For each one, multiple reviewers were solicited, with at least one reviewer from each "culture" (a scientist and a philosopher). In many cases, several rounds of revision were carried out. Needless to say, this required great patience and dedication of all participants. The editors gratefully acknowledge the contributions of our authors, and of our anonymous reviewers, who worked long and hard on the papers we sent them with no compensation for their efforts. We also wish to thank the Elsevier editorial and production team for the support they gave us in bringing this project to fruition. We would now like to offer a synoptic overview of the Special Issue, proceeding section by section and paper by paper. Our hope is that the reader will find this unique effort to marry science and philosophy both meaningful and enjoyable.

Beyond Descartes and Newton: Recovering life and humanity.

Attempts to 'naturalize' phenomenology challenge both traditional phenomenology and traditional approaches to cognitive science. They challenge Edmund Husserl's rejection of naturalism and his attempt to establish phenomenology as a foundational transcendental discipline, and they challenge efforts to explain cognition through mainstream science. While appearing to be a retreat from the bold claims made for phenomenology, it is really its triumph. Naturalized phenomenology is spearheading a successful challenge to the heritage of Cartesian dualism. This converges with the reaction against Cartesian thought within science itself. Descartes divided the universe between res cogitans, thinking substances, and res extensa, the mechanical world. The latter won with Newton and we have, in most of objective science since, literally lost our mind, hence our humanity. Despite Darwin, biologists remain children of Newton, and dream of a grand theory that is epistemologically complete and would allow lawful entailment of the evolution of the biosphere. This dream is no longer tenable. We now have to recognize that science and scientists are within and part of the world we are striving to comprehend, as proponents of endophysics have argued, and that physics, biology and mathematics have to be reconceived accordingly. Interpreting quantum mechanics from this perspective is shown to both illuminate conscious experience and reveal new paths for its further development. In biology we must now justify the use of the word "function". As we shall see, we cannot prestate the ever new biological functions that arise and constitute the very phase space of evolution. Hence, we cannot mathematize the detailed becoming of the biosphere, nor write differential equations for functional variables we do not know ahead of time, nor integrate those equations, so no laws "entail" evolution. The dream of a grand theory fails. In place of entailing laws, a post-entailing law explanatory framework is proposed in which Actuals arise in evolution that constitute new boundary conditions that are enabling constraints that create new, typically unprestatable, Adjacent Possible opportunities for further evolution, in which new Actuals arise, in a persistent becoming. Evolution flows into a typically unprestatable succession of Adjacent Possibles. Given the concept of function, the concept of functional closure of an organism making a living in its world, becomes central. Implications for patterns in evolution include historical reconstruction, and statistical laws such as the distribution of extinction events, or species per genus, and the use of formal cause, not efficient cause, laws.

Overcoming the Newtonian paradigm: the unfinished project of theoretical biology from a Schellingian perspective.

Defending Robert Rosen's claim that in every confrontation between physics and biology it is physics that has always had to give ground, it is shown that many of the most important advances in mathematics and physics over the last two centuries have followed from Schelling's demand for a new physics that could make the emergence of life intelligible. Consequently, while reductionism prevails in biology, many biophysicists are resolutely anti-reductionist. This history is used to identify and defend a fragmented but progressive tradition of anti-reductionist biomathematics. It is shown that the mathematico-physico-chemical morphology research program, the biosemiotics movement, and the relational biology of Rosen, although they have developed independently of each other, are built on and advance this anti-reductionist tradition of thought. It is suggested that understanding this history and its relationship to the broader history of post-Newtonian science could provide guidance for and justify both the integration of these strands and radically new work in post-reductionist biomathematics.