1. (Human Cognitive) Traits: Matt Gers mattphilos@twitter matt.gers@vuw.ac.nz Out With Information, In With Causation 1. Either some elements of the developmental matrix are privileged* or none are. 2. The Brute Parity Thesis argues that no elements are developmentally privileged. (Semantic content could grant developmental privilege, but even genes don’t contain semantic information.) 3. However, some genes remain intuitively developmentally privileged. 4. If there are different Causal Kinds this might explain developmental privilege. 5. Stability, Specificity, Proportionality, and Enablement are different Causal Kinds. 6. To the degree that genes are these kinds of causes they are developmentally privileged. 7. To the degree that any element of the developmental matrix satisfies this criteria, it is privileged. 8. Therefore, some, but certainly not all, elements of the developmental matrix are developmentally causally privileged (see elements in upper right of state-space boxes). Not all Developmental Causes are Equivalent Woodward’s Causal Kinds The Brute Parity Thesis of Developmental Causation (Woodward 2010) STABILITY:The causal relation holds over a wide range of background conditions. Genes are privileged causes. Natural selection ‘puts’ semantic information into the genome (Maynard-Smith 2000). SPECIFICITY:Many interventions on the cause map to many possible outcomes. But membranes, environments, contexts of gene expression, these are all important as well! (Oyama 1985). PROPORTIONALITY:Causes must fit with their effects. No irrelevent detail of cause or effect. So, systems theorists insist on taking every causal factor equally seriously (Godfrey-Smith 2001). A 4th Causal Kind: Enablers 1. Pr(E|Cexpl) ≈ Pr(E|C) 2. Pr(E|Cexpl)≈ Pr(E|Cexpl∧Ck) for all Ck Stable > The Potochnik (2007) criteria for causal explanation suggest we should include the road in explaining why the chicken crossed. Yet the road is not distinguished from other causes. Such enablers need to be accounted for in the state-space model. Genes Don’t Carry Semantic Information Enabling > A State-Space Model of Causal Kinds Information content is always a true proposition (Perez-Montoro 2007) [This is not the case with genes and phenotypes]. Specific > Proportional > Specific > Following a program is not sufficient for information content (Rosenberg 2006). Forget the information content of the gene and decide what kind of cause it is Enabling > Stable > Interpreting systems must actively construct information (Jablonka 2006) [There is no such interpreter of the genome]. Stable > Dysbindin – A gene related to intelligence in a non-proportional, non-enabling, non-stable, but specific way. [Bracketed comments are my own] FoxP2 – A gene related to language capability in a semi-specific, non-proportional, non-stable, possibly enabling way. A series of 3D models showing selected causal kind dimensions. The full model is a single 4D space. Proportional > Huntingtin – A gene related to Huntington’s disease in a specific, stable, proportional, enabling way. * What is Causal Privilege? In complex causal systems we want to focus attention on the ‘important’ causes. By showing asymmetries among causes we can favour some causes over others according to the questions we are asking. These privileged causes tend to be found in the top right of the state-space models. Implications of Causal Kinds Structure for developmental systems theory. Visual inspection of causal kinds. Regions of state-space might correspond to developmentally interesting concepts. Quantification of causal privilege !?