Written by Müller Pretorius, 2024.
Email: mullerpr@gmail.com
(A new perspective on using science to expose the fundamental teleological underpinnings of our reality. This article introduces a post-reductionist materialist outlook that was, among other things, inspired by Thomas Nagel’s "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False")
1. Background and Introduction
The scientific method has long been recognised for its systematic ability to dissect and explain the natural world through a lens of mechanistic principles while using the best-known causal reasoning. However, there exists a pervasive logical error when only mechanistic interpretations are applied to the study of all forms of life, particularly multi-cellular organisms. Many assume that if an organism exists, its mere existence must be mechanistically more probable than other dynamic structures. This purely mechanistic assumption is entirely self-evident. Therefore, it mostly goes untested, particularly when it becomes intuitively clear that mechanistic probabilities might, or certainly will, expose this materialistic dogma to be flawed. The inherent properties of mechanistic structures and the probabilities arising from their dynamics can challenge this dogmatic perspective. The laws of nature define a specific set of mechanistic probabilities. In contrast, a different set of probabilities, which are only realised when the actions of a mindful agent become part of the system, forms a substantial part of our scientific experience.
In a modern scientific context, we can critically evaluate these 19th-century mechanistic perspectives mainly due to 20th-century findings in physics, mathematics, information science, and biology. Without going into the details of these scientific findings, this article will explore the validity of these 19th-century materialistic views in light of contemporary discoveries.
The still pervasive methodological naturalist dogma and, ultimately, the self-referential claim about the existence of certain life forms, including human life, is fundamentally flawed because it is evident that it ignores the inherent probabilistic mechanistic advantage of single-celled organisms in any possible environment. Somehow, we still think that our existence as humans is mechanistically inevitable, and therefore, there is a mechanistic pathway to explain our existence. However, these single-celled organisms can be used as reference organisms. This can be achieved when these reference organisms are used as an observable means to test our mechanistic assumption about our own existence and, in fact, all multi-cellular organisms’ existence. The primary claim in this article is that from a purely mechanistic point of view, the known properties of single-celled organisms can be used as a reference point for all other living structures. This article will then argue that given single-celled organisms are demonstrably more likely to survive and outcompete all redundant-dependencies (i.e. multi-cellular) kinds of organisms, based on mechanistic principles, the existence of complex multi-cellular organisms suggests the presence of additional causal factors beyond pure mechanistic probability events.
To understand the implications of random mutations and natural selection within Darwinian Evolution, including the neo-Darwinian synthesis, it is essential to recognise that these processes inherently suggest a mechanistic probability space. In this probability space, random mutations generate various structural changes, and those structures with a higher mechanistic probability—i.e., those that enhance survival and reproduction—are naturally selected. This selection process adheres strictly to mechanistic principles, where the likelihood of a mutation's persistence is determined by its contribution to an organism's mechanistic probability of survival. This methodological naturalist dogma, which posits that life forms, including human beings, arise purely from these mechanistic processes, fails to account for the inherent probabilistic advantage of single-celled organisms. Single-celled organisms, due to their parsimonious and robust structures, have a superior mechanistic probability to persist and outcompete other redundantly interdependent organisms in any environment compared to multi-cellular organisms.
After introducing these concepts, it becomes immediately necessary to address the concept of “niche environments within complex ecologies”, which are being used by most evolutionary biologists to arbitrarily demarcate a probability space, where specific organisms are thought to evolve traits suited to particular environmental pressures. However, this concept implicitly introduces non-mechanistic teleology - the notion that niche environments, adequately defined, lead to life forms developing with “niche-defined” goals. This idea stands in stark contradiction to materialist Darwinian theory, which fundamentally disallows any teleological explanations, adhering strictly to random mutations and natural selection as undirected processes. The physical realities of any environment, combined with the observed ubiquity of single-celled organisms in virtually all conceivable environments, further challenge the purposeful abstractions made about the “niche environments”.
However, single-celled organisms thrive in a vast array of environments. Therefore, you have an actual physical structure or life form with which to compare any other organism’s probabilities. Their dominance across diverse conditions underscores a purely mechanistic probabilistic success model, which demonstrably invalidates the mechanistic probability spaces for niche-specific adaptations that multi-cellular organisms purportedly acquire mechanistically. The principle is that all organisms compete solely on their mechanistic, structural properties in a mechanistic probability space. Therefore, the reliance on niche environments to explain the existence of complex life forms inadvertently reintroduces the “disallowed teleological elements”, contradicting the core principles of Darwinian materialism and highlighting the need for additional causal explanations beyond mechanistic probability. This teleological importation changes the entire neo-Darwinian conception of life!
The introduction of “niche environments” to explain the development of specific traits in organisms can be compared to the addition of epicycles in the Ptolemaic cosmology. In the Ptolemaic model, epicycles were introduced to account for the apparent retrograde motion of planets, creating increasingly complex and ad hoc modifications to fit observational data into the geocentric framework. Similarly, the concept of niche environments introduces additional layers of explanation to accommodate the observed diversity and complexity of life within a mechanistic framework. Both approaches serve to maintain existing theoretical structures by adding complexity, but in doing so, they reveal underlying inadequacies and the need for more fundamental revisions to the theoretical foundations. Just as the heliocentric model eventually replaced the Ptolemaic system by providing a more coherent and more straightforward explanation, a new understanding of life’s development may be required to move beyond the limitations imposed by niche-centric evolutionary explanations.
Therefore, this article proposes that the fundamental materialistic probability space must be the only explanatory focus to retain materialist claims. If it fails, it needs to be replaced, not with arbitrary additions to maintain the materialist dogma, but with actual observed causal realities. This focus will challenge the emergence of unnecessary or novel dependencies within multi-cellular organisms. These dependencies introduce complexities and unnecessary potential points of failure from a purely mechanistic standpoint. Considering an obvious reference point, such multi-cellular intricacies can be identified for their highly improbable and counterintuitive survival probabilities, suggesting that additional non-mechanistic factors are at play. This compels us to reconsider and expand our understanding beyond the constraints of mechanistic probability alone. All scientists know that additional causal agents are acting in ways that account for what we observe.
To understand the persistence and diversity of life, we must suspend purely mechanistic claims about any life form less probable to survive than single-celled organisms and seek alternative causal explanations. This explanatory approach must be applied throughout the entire evolutionary timescales we hypothesise and observe. This study argues that the scientific method must evolve beyond mechanistic dogmas to incorporate the study of agency and teleology when explaining the existence of complex organisms, as mechanistic interpretations fall short when they try to explain anything outside the realm of highly optimised single-celled life forms.
2. Mechanistic Explanations and Their Limitations
The vast diversity of different kinds of Single-celled organisms, such as bacteria and archaea, can serve as the living and observable archetype of mechanistic efficiency and probabilistic outcomes in any possible environment. These life forms possess highly optimised structures and functions that enable them to survive, reproduce, compete, and adapt with remarkable success. The metabolic pathways of these organisms are highly efficient, allowing them to thrive and, in principle, outcompete any less ecologically probable life forms in environments where multi-cellular organisms exist. They can also survive in many extreme environments where multi-cellular structures cannot, such as the intense heat of hydrothermal vents, the acidic conditions of sulfuric springs, and even outer space. Their nano-structured efficiency represents an optimised level of complexity in function that is fine-tuned for mechanistic survival. It might require us to shed our ideas about “bigger is better”, and the notion that consciousness somehow translates into improved survivability; both these myths are very dubious for any honest materialist or naturalist observer to acknowledge.
Moreover, no clear mechanistic advantages can be found in any biological structure that simply improves conscious experiences at the expense of survival success, as seen in more efficient organisms like bacteria. These single-celled organisms interact with energy and chemical signals far more mechanistically efficient. It is self-evidently clear that the primary benefits of complex sensory systems and heightened consciousness are related to the quality of conscious experience itself rather than survival efficiency. Such heightened consciousness necessitates many ad hoc strategies to ensure the survival of these inherently fragile properties, which do not contribute to the mechanistic efficiency observed in single-celled organisms. The existence of complex multi-cellular organisms with systems beneficial to conscious experiences does not inherently provide a survival benefit that outweighs the efficient, streamlined operations of bacteria. Conscious experiences, while rich and varied, do not equate to increased survival probabilities when compared to the parsimonious and highly effective survival strategies of bacteria. Thus, the survival and persistence of life forms do not align well with an examination purely through the lens of mechanistic efficiency. Instead, they are better understood as resulting from the interaction of natural processes and the subjective quality of conscious experiences. This perspective underscores the need to find non-mechanistic reasons or teleological principles to explain the existence and persistence of more complex life forms.
With this kind of unbiased frame of mind, we can look at some examples. The rapid reproductive rates of bacteria, coupled with their ability to exchange genetic material through processes like ad hoc conjugation while retaining single-celled reproductive capabilities. Then, there are ad hoc internal transformations on the scale of a single-celled organism, as well as the transduction of genetic and other structural optimisations. All these and many more properties exclusively optimised within single-celled organisms exemplify the most natural kind of mechanistic optimisation for single-celled organisms within any ecosystem. Keep in mind that all of these mechanistic dynamics were happening during earlier evolutionary epochs as well as in any modern ecosystem.
These processes allow single-celled organisms to adapt quickly to environmental changes. By purely mechanistic considerations, they are supposed to out-compete other forms of life that require unnecessary novel dependencies. Our current ecosystems show this to be the case if you can agree on the self-evident fact that bacteria and viruses are the actual “apex predators” in all known ecosystems and all known environments; it is simply not the mythical T-Rex or the very real “evil rulers of mankind”. The question now becomes pertinent; Why are we here? Why is life not following the mechanistic probability outcomes that are evident for any honest observer?
What is meant by “Mechanistically Optimal”?
To ensure a proper understanding of the mechanistic reference point we need to use to test the persisting 19th-century dogmas, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by "Mechanistically optimal". In principle, it refers to a value judgement made from a comparison of an observed living system and the proposed reference structures found somewhere within the known single-celled ecosystem that highlighted various universal advantages. The inherent advantages that single-celled organisms possess by virtue of their physical properties enable them to consistently outcompete organisms with a plethora of interdependent cells and vast but mechanistically redundant metabolic and reproductive interdependencies based solely on mechanistic principles. These advantages are all universally applicable as they are advantages over any kind of multi-cellular organisms. These mechanistic and probabilistic advantages include:
Metabolic Efficiency: Single-celled organisms such as Saccharomyces cerevisiae (yeast) and various bacteria exhibit highly efficient metabolic processes. Yeast undergoes glycolysis to produce energy in the form of ATP, which allows it to thrive in diverse environments, including those with high sugar and acidic conditions that inhibit bacterial growth. This efficiency enables it to quickly adapt and maximise energy extraction and utilisation under different conditions.
Reproductive Speed: The rapid reproduction rate of single-celled organisms is a significant advantage. Yeast, for instance, can complete its cell cycle in about 90 minutes under optimal conditions, enabling substantial population growth in a short time. Similarly, bacteria such as E. coli can double their population every 20 minutes in ideal conditions, illustrating their ability to adapt and propagatequickly.
Optimised Thermodynamics: Single-celled organisms exploit energy changes in their environments optimally by preserving energy in low-energy settings and dissipating it in high-energy environments. This adaptive mechanism helps them survive and thrive under varying thermal conditions by minimising the number of potential failure events associated with energy fluctuations. They balance their metabolic activities to maintain efficiency in different thermal conditions.
Genetic Economy: Single-celled organisms often have smaller genomes with fewer non-essential genes. This genetic economy allows for faster replication and makes them less susceptible to genetic errors during reproduction. For instance, many bacteria and archaea have compact genomes that include only essential genes, streamlining their metabolic processes and enhancing their ability to adapt quickly to environmental changes.
Rapid Adaptation: Single-celled organisms' high reproduction rate and short generation times accelerate evolutionary processes. These characteristics enable them to develop new traits and adapt swiftly to changing environments. Bacteria can rapidly evolve antibiotic resistance due to their fast replication cycles and the ability to exchange genetic material through horizontal gene transfer.
Efficient Cellular Communication: Single-celled organisms rely on simple and effective signalling mechanisms for cellular communication. Bacteria use quorum sensing to coordinate activities such as nutrient uptake and biofilm formation, while yeasts use signalling molecules like mating factors to communicate and coordinate their actions. These efficient communication strategies ensure swift responses to environmental changes and stressors.
The concept of mechanistic optimality is an obvious value judgement, grounded in the idea that the most streamlined and efficient forms are naturally selected for survival simply by being the more probable organism to persist – it seems to be in line with any of the materialistic interpretations of Darwinian theories. This principle explains the dominance of single-celled organisms in all ecological niches. From a purely mechanistic point of view, single-celled organisms will consistently outperform multicellular organisms due to their inherent efficiency and overall survivability. Thus, the mechanistic superiority of single-celled organisms underscores their persistent dominance across all known habitats, demanding alternative explanations for our own existence, let alone all other mechanistically less probable organisms.
From the details about what would count as “mechanistically optimal”, it is now possible to discuss how the mechanistic dominance of single-celled organisms in the biological landscape can be attributed to the advantages their structures and dynamics exhibit. These nano-structured characteristics, when measured against purely mechanistic principles, grant them a significant survival advantage. Their complex cellular structures are highly optimised for mechanistic efficiency and require fewer resources and energy compared to the intricate systems of multi-cellular organisms, allowing them to thrive in a wide range of environments, from extreme heat to deep oceanic trenches and even outer space.
This mechanistic efficiency suggests that if survival were purely mechanistic, single-celled organisms would continuously outcompete most if not all multi-cellular organisms, starting with the most structurally compromised complex and large life forms, let alone the ones who cannot even perceive the single-celled competition their bodies have to endure. This reality is due to a vast array of purely mechanistic advantages, as we discussed above. Therefore, single-celled organisms’ superior reproduction, competitive adaptability, and resource utilisation will always be the basis for materialistic claims about life forms.
Given their streamlined structures and processes, single-celled organisms exhibit a higher probability of survival and reproduction in varied and often harsh environments. In contrast, multi-cellular organisms face significant challenges due to their vast array of novel dependencies and physical interactions, which seem more adapted for consciousness than for survival; in comparison, these consciousness-seeking behaviours are demonstrably unnecessary from a mechanistic standpoint. These organisms require more resources to maintain their intricate structures and ensure the coordinated function of their numerous cells. This large set of critical dependencies often results in slower reproduction rates and a heightened vulnerability to environmental changes. The novelty of their behaviours becomes paramount, making their survival low-probability events that require explanation, including the mechanisms they employ to overcome these low probabilities. It is essential to distinguish between mechanistic probabilities and subjective, agent-created teleological rule-based probabilities.
Mechanistic probabilities, such as the 50% chance of a coin landing heads or the likelihood of a chemical reaction occurring based on reactant concentrations and temperature, are determined by natural laws and physical properties. In contrast, subjective, agent-created teleological probabilities are directly influenced by the intentions and actions of conscious agents. This can be best identified within the “teleologically defined so-called niche environments” of a group of animals that might enhance their survival probability by forming protective herds, thereby reducing individual predation risk. Alternatively, humans might increase their chances of overcoming environmental challenges by developing agricultural practices. These examples demonstrate how agents causally influence probability spaces through purposeful decision-making and strategic actions. Similarly, multi-cellular organisms, with their complex behaviours and dependencies, may employ conscious strategies to navigate and survive their environments, further distinguishing their survival probabilities from purely mechanistic origins.
The survival strategies of multi-cellular organisms, while sophisticated, involve intricate mechanisms that are ever more resource-intensive – effectively reducing their mechanistic probability to survive and persist. For example, the immune system of humans, which defends against pathogens, is exceptionally novel in its efficiency. Still, it also consumes substantial amounts of energy, which in turn leads to an increase in the probability of humans dying – let alone the vast array of novel experiences that flow from this state of heightened immune responses. In contrast, single-celled organisms employ more straightforward, more direct methods of defence and adaptation that are less resource-dependent, with a higher probability of being successful.
However, despite these apparent advantages, the observable diversity of life forms, including multi-cellular organisms, suggests the presence of alternative life-preserving factors able to overcome these mechanistic low probability spaces, which we can simply admit to be extreme frailties. Pure scientific reasoning demands the falsifiability of mechanistic claims when the data do not support the hypothesis. This diversity challenges the notion that mechanistic efficiency alone dictates survival success – it essentially opens the door to all aspects of aesthetics, consciousness and morality. The persistence and thriving of multi-cellular organisms in various ecosystems indicate, by pure scientific analysis, that factors beyond mere mechanistic optimisation are at play.
3. Limitations of mechanistic paradigms.
While mechanistic interpretations provide a robust framework for understanding single-celled life, they fall short when applied to multi-cellular organisms. By conflating probabilities that do not apply to multi-cellular structures, a “sleight of hand” has been played by the Enlightenment humanists, and their legacy is still being enforced in most of science in general. The interdependent novelty and mechanistic frailty of multi-cellular life forms suggest the presence of additional causal properties or factors that influence their existence – but this is only obvious if you keep in mind the true nature of pure mechanistic probabilities as we learn from physics and the laws of nature. For instance, the intricate behaviours, developmental processes, and symbiotic relationships observed in multi-cellular organisms cannot overcome their less-probable outcomes demanded by purely mechanistic probability considerations. Therefore, they are never fully explained by mechanistic principles alone.
Multi-cellular organisms exhibit a range of characteristics that transcend low mechanistic probabilities. We can discuss some examples:
- Complex Developmental Processes: The development of an organism from a single cell, which will only achieve reproductive viability when a complex multi-cellular entity develops intricate regulatory networks, many morphological structures and a fast array of epigenetic factors. This reality is often oversimplified into mechanistic terms, thereby losing the ability to accurately describe what is observed. This simplification disregards the introduction of numerous low-probability events, all of which need teleological agent-based interventions to overcome the otherwise mechanistic low probabilities. In contrast, single-celled organisms with their higher-probability competitive interaction consistently manifest within the same system where developmental processes happen because single-celled organisms and their competing behaviours are virtually always present in any environment, ready to outperform these developmental processes (… let alone finding explanations for the plethora of interactions which are critically dependent on symbiotic relationships between single-celled organisms and multi-cellular systems.). Therefore, you will find these low-probability developmental processes are a mechanistic liability if survival is the only non-teleological process available. Notwithstanding, these mechanistically low-probability developmental realities are crucial to sustain such novel structures and dynamics, representing a novel reality that mechanistic explanations in principle cannot account for, except if you want to ignore the entire single-celled ecosystem of organisms.
- Behavioural Novelty: Behaviours observed in animals, such as social interactions, learning, and problem-solving, imply the presence of agency and intentionality beyond mere mechanical responses. For instance, the novel social structures of ants, bees, or primates involve intricate communication systems, hierarchical organisation, and cooperative problem-solving strategies. These behaviours fall outside the sphere of higher mechanistic probabilities when compared to the structural dynamics of single-celled organisms in the same environments. Single-celled organisms exhibit behaviours that are governed mainly by straightforward biochemical pathways and environmental responses, which are significantly more probable in mechanistic terms. The intricate behaviours of multi-cellular organisms, however, involve a series of low-probability dependencies, such as the evolution of specialised neural circuits, hormonal regulation, and adaptive learning processes. These require an agent-based explanation to account for the observed novelty and redundant intentionality. Therefore, claiming environmental niches to explain multi-cellularity does not follow from mechanistic claims but becomes self-evident in a system with agency-induced probability spaces. The behavioural complexity of multi-cellular organisms demonstrates a novel reality that transcends mechanistic explanations, emphasising the need for teleological perspectives to understand the full scope of their actions and interactions.
- Symbiosis and Cooperation: Mutualistic relationships in multi-cellular organisms, such as the symbiosis between plants and mycorrhizal fungi or the cooperation between cleaner fish and their hosts, suggest a level of interdependence that cannot be easily explained by mechanistic probabilities alone. These relationships imply unnecessary dependencies when compared to the ad hoc cooperations of single-celled organisms, which lack reproductive dependencies and maintain higher mechanistic probabilities. Single-celled organisms often form transient and opportunistic associations driven by immediate survival benefits without long-term commitments. In contrast, multi-cellular interactions involve coordinated and sustained cooperation, such as the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in plant root nodules or the gut microbiota in animals. These interactions require precise genetic, biochemical, and environmental conditions to be advantageous, indicating numerous low-probability decisive dependencies. Most, if not all, multi-cellular interactions fall short of providing an advantage for successful mechanistic competition and survival when compared to the efficiency of single-celled ecosystems. The complex interdependencies observed in symbiosis and cooperation highlight the need for agent-based causation to fully understand these phenomena. They represent a departure from purely mechanistic explanations and underscore the importance of teleological perspectives in accounting for the novel and intricate relationships that sustain multi-cellular life.
The limitations of mechanistic interpretations become evident when attempting to explain the emergence and persistence of life forms in a competitive environment where these organisms and structures always have to compete against single-celled organisms. This is even a reality of our own day, and we can always ask ourselves; If Darwin was correct, why do we observe any less probable living system compared to single-celled organisms?
These persistent questions flow from the explanatory limitations and highlight the need for a broader scientific paradigm that incorporates the study of agency and other non-mechanistic factors to fully understand the richness of life on Earth. This approach not only allows for this kind of study to be neutral towards any mechanistic outcome, but it ultimately allows for a clear assessment of when to suspend purely mechanistic explanations and when to assume agency. It further provides for all knowledge and experience about what is capable of being achieved by agents like ourselves as well as any known or unknown agent whose artefacts we observe or experience through the entire complex of human consciousness.
4. Case Studies and Examples where the “Science of Agency” is already the de facto methodology.
The "Science of Agency" offers an intuitive acknowledgement of an approach to understanding the full spectrum of behaviours observed in the natural world, moving beyond the limitations of purely mechanistic explanations. This section presents some compelling case studies and examples where this methodology seems to be applied already, illustrating its intuitive necessity in explaining observed agent causation or teleological phenomena. Through examining animal behaviours and ecosystem dynamics, we uncover how collective agency and strategic interactions present challenges to the traditional mechanistic paradigm. These examples highlight how various kinds of agency, rather than mere mechanistic survival, play a crucial role in the functioning and evolution of biological systems. By showcasing real-world instances where the "Science of Agency" provides a more comprehensive understanding, we aim to demonstrate its indispensability in advancing scientific knowledge.
Complex Behaviours in Animals
The complexity of behaviours observed in animals presents compelling evidence that mechanistic explanations alone are insufficient. For instance, the intricate social structures and communication systems of bees and ants extend beyond simple mechanistic survival strategies. These behaviours indicate a form of collective agency, where the colony operates as a single entity with a level of coordination and intentionality that cannot be solely attributed to individual mechanistic actions. This collective agency cannot be explained by a so-called “nested probability”, where the interdependencies are somehow considered to be purely mechanistic nested probabilities, as all the kinds of organisms work together with the bees’ and ants’ collective agency. This again becomes clear if the mechanistic dependencies and the associated probabilities of these hive-based collective organisms are compared to the mechanistic probabilities of single-celled organisms.
Seeley's (2010) research on honeybee democracy illustrates how bees collectively make decisions about nesting sites, demonstrating a form of proto-consciousness and group-level agency within an ecological network of agents acting in harmony, not for mechanistic or single-species survival behaviours but for ecological purposes to preserve agency and consciousness.
Additionally, the novel “problem-solving” abilities of certain bird species, such as crows and parrots, further challenge the mechanistic paradigm (…take note the “novel problem-solving” is only problems for organisms with novel low probability structures and behaviours – it is not a challenge posed by their niche environments, it is a challenge posed by their less optimal novelties and deviations from more structurally sound organisms like bacteria). Notwithstanding, studies have shown that these birds can use tools, solve complex puzzles, and even exhibit behaviours that suggest an understanding of cause and effect (Emery & Clayton, 2004). These examples of animal cognition and behaviour suggest that a purely mechanistic view falls short, as it fails to account for the nuanced and mechanistically inefficient ways in which animals interact with their environment and each other. From a purely mechanistic perspective, these interactions reduce their probability of survival compared to the single-celled ecology they must compete with if one still dogmatically accepts a Darwinian outlook.
Ecosystem Dynamics
Ecosystem dynamics provide another arena where mechanistic explanations are inadequate. Ecosystems are characterised by a web of interactions that include competition, cooperation, and mutualism, often displaying emergent properties that cannot be predicted by analysing individual components in isolation. For instance, the relationship between mycorrhizal fungi and plant roots exemplifies mutualistic symbiosis, where both organisms benefit in ways that enhance their survival and growth. This interaction cannot be fully explained by mechanistic principles, as it involves a level of cooperation and resource exchange that suggests a form of agency in maintaining a mechanistically novel relationship (Smith & Read, 2008).
Moreover, predator-prey dynamics often exhibit behaviours that appear to involve strategic planning and anticipation, which are supra-mechanistic strategies necessary to overcome the mechanistic low probabilities their unnecessary high-energy body plans introduce when they go beyond more probable mechanistic responses. The observed hunting strategies of wolves, which include complex social cooperation and role differentiation, indicate a level of collective intentionality, […just to overcome their frail body plans and structural dynamics] (Mech, 1999).
These examples underscore the need to incorporate a broader understanding of fundamental agency and interaction within ecosystems, moving beyond the limitations of mechanistic interpretations.
5. The Need to Make the New Scientific Paradigm Official.
Beyond Mechanistic Dogmas
The limitations of mechanistic explanations become evident when considering the extremely low mechanistic probability and novel diversity of life beyond single-celled organisms. To understand the full spectrum of biological existence, a paradigm shift in scientific inquiry is necessary. This new paradigm must move beyond strict mechanistic interpretations to incorporate the study of agency and other non-mechanistic factors. Probabilities in nature can be the pointers to the nature of agency at work. When the mechanistic probability is accounted for, agent systems can be investigated for agent-based probability spaces. This allows for a path to knowledge that provides for all rational interactions as well as aesthetic and irrational interactions and experiences to be identified according to the actual kinds of probabilities at play, both mechanistic and those caused by agents.
Mechanistic dogmas, while providing a robust framework for understanding mechanistically optimised/optimising life forms, need to explain the novel behaviours and survival strategies of multi-cellular / multi-organ organisms. The concept of agency—intentionality and decision-making capability—must be considered to be fundamental to fully grasp the dynamics of life. Agency, apart from being fundamental, also implies that organisms can engage in purposeful behaviour that is not reducible to mechanistic objectives (…or mechanistic probabilities for those who like to stick to non-teleological science). This kind of novel behaviour from mechanistically low-probability organisms constitutes agency. Also, it influences the evolution and persistence of organisms in ways that mechanistic principles alone cannot explain.
Agency in Evolution
The role of agency in evolution introduces a dimension of intentionality in the development and persistence of most life forms. Agency suggests that any entity is not merely a passive entity driven by mechanistic processes but an active participant in the evolution of novel organisms. This perspective aligns with observations of lower mechanistic survival probability behaviours in organisms.
First, consider that all multi-cellular organisms' body plans exhibit a reduction in mechanistic survival probability due to their structural dependencies and the larger number of activities, all of which constitute additional failure points that need to be executed before reproduction is possible. Therefore, accepting their existence as proof of high mechanistic probabilities must be rejected if we rigorously test the probability of the entire Darwinian evolutionary process. This process must not be extrapolated from current observations backwards. Still, it must be modelled from the beginning of the first life to the existence of observed organisms – while using known causal theories.
This rational evaluation will reveal non-mechanistic agency by highlighting its mechanistic improbability. It will also demonstrate the original and persistent necessity for the kind of causal mechanisms, we experience as mindful agency, to overcome the reduction in survivability while still ensuring the successful persistence of a vast spectrum of novel multi-organ species and their novel ecosystems.
Only then can you also consider the interacting causal behaviours of many multi-cellular organisms, such as cooperation, altruism, and even the use of tools. At the same time, it demonstrates a level of agency that goes beyond mechanistic explanations. These behaviours contribute to their survival and reproduction, not by virtue of a purely mechanistic increase in survival probability, but in ways that strictly mechanistic processes cannot account for. The intricate communication and organisation seen in honeybee colonies suggest a kind of agency that enhances resilience and adaptability. This agency is not merely for their own survival but also for the complex interactions necessary to overcome the low probabilities faced by organisms dependent on each other. These dependencies expose frailties when measured against the more probable nanostructures of single-celled organisms and their original single-celled ecosystems. This underscores the need for an agency to intervene in these low-probability scenarios, a necessity which is far more mechanistically evident in single-celled organisms. Any kind of randomly introduced new dependencies that are mechanistically more probable to survive simply do not allow for low probability dependencies without a pervasive influence of novel teleological objectives as well as the agency capable of giving causal effect to those novel outcomes throughout any deviation from the original single-celled ecosystems.
Incorporating agency into scientific research requires methodological changes and interdisciplinary collaboration. Fields such as biology, mathematics, physics, psychology, and philosophy must converge to develop a holistic understanding of life that embraces both mechanistic and non-mechanistic factors. This expanded perspective could lead to breakthroughs in understanding the complexities of life and the underlying principles that govern it.
While mechanistic interpretations provide valuable insights into the survival of single-celled organisms, they need to explain the low mechanistic survival probabilities and diversity of multi-cellular life. A new scientific paradigm that includes the study of agency and other non-mechanistic factors, capable of accounting for agent-based probability spaces, is essential for a comprehensive understanding of life. This shift will enable scientists to explore the true nature of aspects like consciousness and uncover the mechanisms that drive the evolution and the preservation of all life in general.
Methodological Changes
To address the limitations of mechanistic interpretations, scientific methodology must make another paradigm shift to include the study of agency and other non-mechanistic factors. This involves developing new frameworks and models that can account for the intentionality and complexity observed in living organisms and their interactions. One approach could be the integration of systems biology, which emphasises the holistic analysis of biological systems and their emergent properties (Kitano, 2002). By focusing on the interactions and interdependencies within systems, researchers can gain insights into the underlying principles that govern behaviours and dynamics with low mechanistic survival probability. This can be called the study of mechanisms that allow mechanistic frailty, particularly in relation to consciousness, to persist. Here, frailty is measured against the robust mechanistic properties of single-celled ecosystems and our dependence on these more probable single-celled structures.
Additionally, adopting more mechanistically neutral methodologies applied in fields such as more inclusive ethology and behavioural ecology can provide a more nuanced understanding of animal behaviour and ecosystem interactions. These disciplines emphasise the study of organisms in their natural and agency-based environments, considering the roles of learning, adaptation, and social interactions. Incorporating these approaches can help bridge the gap between mechanistic and agency-based explanations, offering a more comprehensive view of life.
Interdisciplinary Approaches
Collaboration between diverse fields such as biology, mathematics, physics, chemistry, psychology, and philosophy is essential for developing a holistic understanding of life that transcends mechanistic dogmas. Materialistically neutral biology provides the foundational knowledge of the physical and biochemical processes that sustain life. At the same time, physics and mathematics expose the mechanistic boundaries of material interactions, and psychology offers insights into behaviour, cognition, and the role of agency. Philosophy, on the other hand, contributes critical perspectives on the nature of consciousness, intentionality, and the ethical implications of scientific research.
Interdisciplinary research programs that combine these perspectives can foster innovative approaches and methodologies. An example of this kind of multidisciplinary cooperation can be seen in the emerging field of biosemiotics, which explores the role of signs and communication in biological systems, bridging the gap between biology and semiotics (Barbieri, 2008). Such interdisciplinary initiatives can lead to new theoretical frameworks and experimental techniques that capture the complexity of life in ways that mechanistic models alone cannot.
6. Conclusion
This article has highlighted the inherent limitations of mechanistic explanations in accounting for the diversity and complexity of life, particularly multi-cellular organisms. While single-celled organisms exhibit optimal mechanistic efficiency and survival probability, the existence and persistence of more complex life forms point to factors beyond purely mechanistic principles. The frailty and novel dependencies of multi-cellular organisms introduce low-probability events that mechanistic paradigms cannot adequately explain.
To truly understand the rich spectrum of life and the wonderful spectrum of consciousness we do experience and observe, it is imperative to move beyond mechanistic dogmas and incorporate the study of agency, intentionality, and other non-mechanistic factors. This shift in scientific inquiry necessitates methodological changes and interdisciplinary collaboration, integrating insights from biology, mathematics, physics, psychology, and philosophy. By embracing a more holistic approach, we can uncover the underlying principles that govern the existence and persistence of life forms, leading to groundbreaking discoveries and a deeper appreciation of the natural world.
One of the unique, or rather forgotten, approaches discussed in this article is the use of mechanistic probabilities to successfully expose the influence of agency on any structure, including living systems. By rigorously testing mechanistic probabilities, as we propose, concerning single-celled organisms as a reference point, it becomes possible to reveal the role of agency in overcoming the inherent mechanistic low probabilities of multi-cellular organisms. This method depends on having a validated mechanistic reference point within the fundamental physical properties found in single-celled organisms. Furthermore, this method allows for a clear assessment of when to suspend purely mechanistic explanations and when to assume agency, ultimately promoting a balanced scientific perspective that respects both mechanistic and agent-based contributions to the evolution and persistence of life. This study might even highlight a new approach to the study of the origin of life, even though it has been axiomatically accepted for this study.
Ultimately, recognising the limitations of mechanistic interpretations and the need for a broader scientific paradigm will allow us to explore the true nature of consciousness, agency, and the intricate web of interactions that sustain life. This article advocates for the “Science of Agency” as a neutral and essential sphere of inquiry, promoting a return to the dogmatic neutrality that characterised early scientific methods and fostering a more comprehensive understanding of the universe.
References
- Saccharomyces Cerevisiae - The Definitive Guide | Biology Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved from Biology Dictionary.
- 10.1A: The Role of the Cell Cycle - Biology LibreTexts. (n.d.). Retrieved from Biology LibreTexts.
- Metabolic reactions: Less is more in single-celled organisms. (2008, December 5). Retrieved from Phys.org.
- Reece, J. B., Urry, L. A., Cain, M. L., Wasserman, S. A., Minorsky, P. V., & Jackson, R. B. (2011). Bacteria and archaea. In Campbell Biology (10th ed., pp. 567-575). San Francisco, CA: Pearson.
- Todar, K. (2012). The growth of bacterial populations. In Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology. Retrieved from Todar’s Online Textbook of Bacteriology.
- Vicente, M., Rico, A. I., Martínez-Arteaga, R., & Mingorance, J. (2006). Septum enlightenment: assembly of bacterial division proteins. Journal of Bacteriology, 188(1), 19-27. doi:10.1128/JB.188.1.19-27.2006.
- Laporte, D., O'Connell, K., Sagot, I., & Daignan-Fornier, B. (2015). A pH-driven transition of the cytoplasm from a fluid- to a solid-like state promotes entry into dormancy. eLife. Retrieved from eLife (eLife).
- Walker, L. (2020). Meet baker’s yeast, the budding, single-celled fungus that fluffs your bread. UBNow: News and views for UB faculty and staff. University at Buffalo. Retrieved from University at Buffalo (University at Buffalo).
- Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2024). Bacteria. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica (Encyclopedia Britannica).
- An Introduction to Plankton. (n.d.). Retrieved from SpringerLink (SpringerLink).
- OpenStax Biology 2e. (n.d.). Signaling in Single-Celled Organisms. Retrieved from Lumen Learning (Lumen Learning).
- 46.2: Energy Flow through Ecosystems. (n.d.). Retrieved from Biology LibreTexts(Biology LibreTexts).
- Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia (2024). Bacteria. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica (Encyclopedia Britannica).
- Microbiology - Lumen Learning. (n.d.). Unique Characteristics of Prokaryotic Cells. Retrieved from Lumen Learning (Lumen Learning).
- Barbieri, M. (2008). Biosemiotics: A new understanding of life. Springer.
- Emery, N. J., & Clayton, N. S. (2004). The mentality of crows: Convergent evolution of intelligence in corvids and apes. Science, 306(5703), 1903-1907.
- Kitano, H. (2002). Systems biology: a brief overview. Science, 295(5560), 1662-1664.
- Mech, L. D. (1999). Alpha status, dominance, and division of labour in wolf packs. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 77(8), 1196-1203.
- Seeley, T. D. (2010). Honeybee Democracy. Princeton University Press.
- Smith, S. E., & Read, D. J. (2008). Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Academic Press.
