North American Philosophical Publications

What Is a Process?
Author(s): Stanley Munsat
Source: American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Jan., 1969), pp. 79-83
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the North American Philosophical
Publications
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009292
Accessed: 21-06-2019 17:36 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press, North American Philosophical Publications are collaborating

with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Philosophical Quarterly

This content downloaded from 93.243.96.237 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Philosophical Quarterly
Volume 6, Number I, January 1969

VIII. WHAT IS A PROCESS?

STANLEY MUNSAT

I other words, I shall explain the structure of n

natural processes in terms of a borrowing of vario
features from the structure found in the natu
JN this paper I hope to give some insight into the
*- concept of a process. I hope to show that pro?
processes. Nothing important depends on my pr
cesses, to be processes, must exhibit a relatively
ceeding in this way. Processes form a family as
definite structure and that in virtue of this might
structure
have expected. But by considering some c
it can be seen why process words have the as logic
essential or "core" cases, the exposition will
made less clumsy and one should be able to g
which they do have. I feel that this investigation
has relevance to the philosophy of mind, indeedof the structure of processes which wil
picture
that it is necessary before certain discussionseasier
can be to keep in mind than had the exposit
jumped about randomly from case to case.
carried out with any degree of clarity. For example,
why do we sometimes speak of thinking as activity, Ill
sometimes as process? Could sensations be processes?
Why is waving my arm not a process whereas
There are several "properties" of processes which
getting across a room in a cast might very any wellanalysis
be a of the structure of processes must take
into account.
difficult and painful process? This investigation is Processes take time, can be inter?
rupted
of obvious interest to the philosophy of science. For or completed, and things of various sorts
example, does a term like "radiation" refer to a them. Processes can proceed at a normal
"undergo"
process, an activity, or a product of one of orthese,
abnormal rate. It is possible to break processes
or all three? We speak of metabolic processesup into stages if one cares to, and one can then ask
(e.g.,
digestion or oxidation), but is metabolismwhat itselfpoint
a of the process has been reached at a
particular
process? Are processes "really there" in nature? I time. This is not to say that processes
hope to give answers to some of these questions, as
come already so broken up, but rather that breaking
well as others, or at least to give an accountthem up of into stages would be sensible in the way
processes which will make the task of answering
that it would not be for "achievements" (winning,
such questions somewhat less formidable. seeing), directions (left, north), or facts. Finally, we
II talk of reversing a process ; hence processes must in
some sense have direction.
For purposes of exposition, I wish to begin by IV
considering what might be called "natural"
processes. I have in mind such processes as fermen?
Using what I have called "natural processes"
tation, osmosis, digestion, evaporation, droplet
examples, it seems that every process consists of f
coagulation in clouds (my invention), and partsphoto?
or stages. These stages are (i) an initial st
synthesis. I call these "natural" in contrast with,or stuff), (2) an event or activity, (3)
(or object
e.g., due legal process, getting across the room in
episode, a (4) a product or a result (which
and
cast, and the elimination of the causes of watera state). These so-called stages must
sometimes
pollution (a slow and gradual process). Fermen?
present and in this order for them to constitut
tation is called "natural" because, unlikeprocess.
the waterThus, in osmosis the particular physic
pollution case, although steps taken by humans
"elements"maywhich occupy the appropriate stages
instigate or induce the process in question, they do
(1) liquid on one side of the membrane, (2) mo
not constitute it. cules moving randomly toward a membrane, (3
There is a special reason for my taking theup the
molecules reaching the other side, and (4)
so-called "natural" processes first. I am molecules
going to or fluid being on the other side.
consider these as being the "core" examples
evaporation of we have (1) a liquid, (2) molecule
processes and consider cases which differ from these moving rapidly, (3) certain molecul
that liquid
as in a sense degenerate, or at any rate leaving
deviant. the
In original liquid, and (4) molecules
79

This content downloaded from 93.243.96.237 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 80 AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

the form of a gas or vapor, separate from the original And, finally, to reverse a process is t
body of liquid. via a process, where you started via
In support of the claim that all processes have which is roughly the original activity or t
such a structure, I would like to invent a process ; I activity backwards.1
shall call this process "droplet coagulation in clouds, ' ' VI
(Maybe there is such a process, but probably not
under that name.) A likely-sounding story of how It may already have occurred to the reader that
droplet coagulation takes place would be the follow? although the account which has been given seems
ing: subdroplets moving about at random strike to fit and characterize examples of processes, many
each other, stick together, and form a droplet. Here things which fit the schema could not possibly be
the initial state is the sub-droplet state, the activity construed as processes. For example, consider a pile
is the moving around of the subdroplets, the epi? of bricks falling over. We have an initial state (the
sode their coming together, and the product, the bricks being in a pile), an activity (the bricks
droplet. I suggest that were one to have given a falling), an episode (the bricks landing in a certain
name to the moving of the droplets, it would have position), and a resultant state (the bricks bein
been something like "subdroplet activity," i.e., not scattered on the ground). But there is no process
a process term like "coagulation." That is, we only here ("brick scatterization"). I think the answer
call something a process, or refer to it by a process can be given in terms of a cluster of concepts which
word, when we conceive of it as having the struc? apply in the case of a process, but which do not
ture I have delineated as constitutive of a process. apply in the case of the bricks. Such concepts in?
Along these same lines, it is interesting to note clude "leading to," "culminating in" (as opposed
that we can shift the various physical phenomena simply to "ending when"), "bringing about," and
that go to make up a process from one stage to "in such a way so as to." Indeed, I would go so far
another and end up with a different process. Thus as to say that what distinguishes processes from non
if we make the transferring of energy to certain processes is the applicability of these concepts. Also,
molecules the activity and the molecules being set processes involve a very definite direction in a
in motion a resultant episode, with their being in a special or a particular manner toward a specific
high state of movement the result, we have a process end. To summarize, "process" is a ideologica
which we might name "molecule energization." concept.
Conversely, in taking "molecule energization" to However, it is not enough to account for the
be a process (as the term would suggest) the specifi? difference between osmosis and a pile of bricks
cation of what it involves "automatically" takes the falling over merely to say that a set of concepts
form initial state?event or activity?episode?applies to the one and not the other. Some account
product or result. needs to be given of why this is so. But I would like
V to postpone discussion of this crucial problem until
after I have discussed non-natural processes because
We are now in a position to seeI feel how the
that we shall logic
find thereof
some helpful clues.
process words can be accounted for in terms ofVII the
stages found constitutive of a process. A process can
A. Procedural Processes
take time in virtue of there being an activity or an
event involved ; when we speak Sometimes of a process one reads being that so and so was denied the
interrupted, we refer to the activity right to due
not legal process. The phraseology may, in
culminating
in the episode. The things which "undergo"
certain contexts, be pretentious and certainly it is
processes are the elements of theidiomatic, first stage, but i.e.,
it is aa literal use of the term
"process."
thing or stuff. The normal or abnormal rateWhat is interesting about this case is
refers
thatto
to the time taken for the activity there are numerous
culminate in points of analogy between
the episode (not the "activeness"legal processes
of the and what I have called "natural"
activity,
processes.
though this is no doubt related to the rateTrue,
at nothing
which undergoes due process, but
it reaches its culmination.) it is gone through or adhered to (sometimes, any
1 This statement of what it is to reverse a process should be taken somewhat liberally if it is to hold for revers
which has not yet reached completion, i.e., where reversing it constitutes an interruption. We might try the fo
reverse a process which has not yet reached completion is to reach the initial state or stuff via a process which is
already partially completed, through roughly the original activity or the original activity run backwards.

This content downloaded from 93.243.96.237 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHAT IS A PROCESS? 8l

way). And although there is nothing which we simply that in calling getting dressed a process (as
could call stages of due process, instead there are in "a long and involved process"), we are putting
it in a particular light. It is as though "process"
steps. That is, a system of stages in a natural process
becomes a series of steps in a legal one, and causal were being used metaphorically, though strictly
connections are replaced by procedural or insti? speaking it is not, to liken getting dressed to "true"
tutional ones. The expression "due legal process," processes. In other words, we are stressing the
then, collects, in a general way, special and partic? directional, structural, step-by-step nature of the
ular steps which must be gone through in a action in calling it a process.
particular sequence in order that the desired
results may be achieved. If these steps are not fol? D. A Process Of
lowed, there has not been due legal process. (If the There is another whole list of process words which
fluid rushes through a tear in the membrane, this is differ importantly from the examples I have dis?
not osmosis). cussed so far. The list includes "growth," "change"
(as in "We have undergone a process of rapid
B. Processes Involving Endeavor change and development"), "development,"
Another class of uses of the term "process" has to do "disintegration," "deterioration," "decay," "evo?
with human activity. We say such things as "Getting lution," and "maturation." The analysis I have so
across the room with one's leg in a cast is a difficult far given of processes does not fit these candidate
and painful process" or "A matador's getting processes at at least one very important point,
dressed is a long and involved process." Here the namely, specificity.2 In the case of such things as
concepts "in such a way as to result in," "cul? maturation or development, not only do we not
minating in," and "leading to" are understood in demand that they proceed in one definite manner
terms not of causal principles or institutional pro? as we do with osmosis and evaporation (for
cedures but rather trying (which is already end example), but we should actually be quite shocked
directed). The specification of the steps is deter? if it turned out that there was one quite definite and
mined not by causal laws or legal ones but rather specific way in which all things which underwent
by the accepted standard practice. "First you have development or maturation did so. Of course de?
to put on this piece of clothing, then this strap velopment or maturation or disintegration involve
attaches so." (The matador case is perhaps best processes, and numerous ones at that; but then,
placed somewhere between the leg-in-the-cast and osmosis does not involve a process, it is one. If such
legal processes.) The same general theme recurs things as development and maturation are to be
throughout?direction, specific steps or stages, considered as belonging to the family of processes,
specific ends reached in a law-like fashion. But the then, it is by marriage and not by blood ; although
sense of "law" involved shifts from case to case. perhaps we could get by with calling them super
processes, nonspecific themselves but processes in
C. In the Process Of virtue of being a kind of loose confederation of
The expression "in the process of" does not collect some of the more specific processes which are
processes, as in "I was in the process of putting on combined in virtue of their involvement in reaching
my coat when you called." Putting on one's coat is a certain end, this end being a state of development
not generally a process (although it might be if for or a state of maturation or a state of decay.3
some reason it had the elements of the matador
VIII
case). It is simply something one might be doing,
but usually not something involved which one is We are now in a position to examine the question
involved in. So getting dressed may be a process, of why it is that we do not want to talk of the process
but not in virtue of the locution "in the process of involved in a pile of bricks falling over when we
getting dressed." Then is getting dressed sometimes have knocked into them, whereas we do want to
a process, and sometimes not? I think the answer is talk about the process involved in fluid passing

2 Also notice we do not say "The fluid has undergone a process of osmosis" or "The blood has undergone a process
lation at the entrance to the capillaries." "A process of" seems to reject the sorts of processes discussed at the begi
the paper.
3 ". . for it is the goal rather than the starting point of motion that gives its name to a particular process of change." Aristotle,
Physics, 22408. Aristotle seems to have had a penchant for taking "super-processes," as I have called them, as his examples of
processes.

This content downloaded from 93.243.96.237 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 82 AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL QUARTERLY

through a membrane. I have claimed, if you will pared to a pile of bricks falling over. The pictures
remember, that the difference is to be accounted are exactly parallel. Molecules shoot about, pass
for in terms of the applicability of a certain cluster through a membrane at random, and most stay
of concepts to the latter case, but not the former.there due to principles of equalization of concen?
These concepts were "in such a way so as to," tration. A pile of bricks is bumped, they fly off
"leading to," "culminating in" (as opposed to according to the forces of inertia, gravity, and air
simply "ending when"), and "bringing about." I resistance and land on the ground and stay there.
think we would know what to look for if asked to The difference between the two cases is not to be
expand this list, for the list contains what have been found by scrutinizing the phenomena more closely.
called "teleological" concepts. But now I want to The difference lies in this?that in the case of a
ask what it is about osmosis, photosynthesis, evapo? process?in this case osmosis?there is a guarantee
ration, etc., that makes us want to apply these con? of the end being reached because there is a closed
cepts to them but not other phenomena which system. And the reason that phenomena which
nevertheless can be described in terms of an initial constitute osmosis are said to form a closed system
state or stuff, an activity, an episode, and a resul? is because there is a notion of what would count as
tant state or stuff. Or, alternatively, if one feels that an intrusion on that system (or if the particulars of
a pile of bricks falling over does indeed involve a the process are not yet known but we do know that
process and could be given a process name just as there is a process operative, that something would
much as a particular sort of passage of the fluid count as an intrusion on the system). When a pile of
through a membrane, how can our disagreement bricks is bumped and the bricks fall away and
be explained? Consider the case of getting across a land helter-skelter on the ground, there are ex?
room with one's leg in a cast. In describing this as a planations of why the bricks landed just as they did
case where we might easily say "getting across a after the fact. But ahead of time, there is no concep?
room with one's leg in a cast is a difficult and tion of what is to count as an intrusion. A gust of
painful process" we are, as we have seen, calling wind? We are not ruling this out when we say that
attention to the fact that there are definite steps bricks scatter, whereas we are ruling out a tear in
which one must go through; getting across a room the membrane when we say that osmosis took place.
in this case is difficult and painful just because the IX
following of the procedure one must engage in to
get across the room when his leg is in a cast is It might now look as if we were at liberty to mak
difficult and painful. But there is more to it than anything we want into a process merely by speci
that. Not only are there these steps, but going fying what is to count as an intrusion, and in so
through them guarantees the end result?a person's specifying, delimiting a system. For example, fr
getting across the room. But now, in what sense what I have said, it would appear that all we wou
does a person who follows the steps involved in have to do to make a pile of bricks falling over in
walking in a cast have a guarantee of getting across a process is to specify the restrictions which are suc
the room? For he may trip; someone may bump that, if not followed, this process has not taken
into him; he may just get too tired to make it. place. Thus every time the bricks fall this way w
The sense of guarantee involved here can, I believe, would have a process, but when other factors inte
be explicated as follows: in saying that getting fered, we would not. But on the other hand, we feel
that processes are discovered, not invented, or a
across a room with a leg in a cast is a long, difficult,
or painful process, we are referring to the existence least when they are invented, as in the case of, f
of definite steps which, if followed, will get him a example, synthetic processes for making rubber
cross the room; but further, we are saying that they aren't invented merely by laying down som
anything which interferes with getting across the rules for what is to count as an intrusion.
room by going through these steps is to be counted I think the answer to our dilemma is to be foun
as an intrusion or interruption, that is, as not being in our noting that there simply are, in natur
a part of this process. To put the point more suc? phenomena which follow rather easily predictab
cinctly, the notion of a guarantee applies in virtue patterns and others which do not. If you put a blood
of our knowing what would count (or that some? corpuscle in water, it's a good bet that water wi
thing would count) as an intrusion upon this fill it up by osmosis and it will burst and that th
process. will happen in a particular way, for it is a good b
Let us return now to the problem of osmosis com that nothing will interfere with its happening in ju

This content downloaded from 93.243.96.237 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 WHAT IS A PROCESS? 83
this way. But when you scatter seeds to the wind, agency was involved in some phenomenon does not
you don't know what exactly is going to happen to preclude the possibility of there being a process in?
the seeds. Of course, you could specify a set of volved; but it is our process. "Brick scatterization"
conditions for the seeds and count the violation of could be a patio-maker's process for setting bricks
these conditions as an intrusion, but to what end? into cement, and would involve various steps, a
What do you learn about what happens to seeds particular end, etc. Only the steps are steps he goes
when thrown to the wind? What can you now do through to get the effect he wants, just as vulcan?
with this knowledge? Of course, nothing; and ization is a rubber-maker's process for hardening
nothing because you will get more intrusions than rubber which involves adding certain chemicals,
not the next ten times you throw up a handful of maintaining certain temperatures, etc., or distil?
seeds. This is why it was discovered how osmosis lation a process for separting liquids, which involves
works. The factors which operate to insure that heating liquids and then cooling the resulting vapor
osmosis as described in scientific detail operates or gas.)4
again and again in exactly the same way was a X
matter of discovery. Osmosis was investigated in the
I would like to conclude with a few s
first place because it operates again and again in
exactly the same way as it is encountered in nature, on the ontological status of processes
not in a vacuum or as a result of our setting things phrase is too metaphysical for your ta
up in a certain way. To put it another way, things ationship between processes such as
are "set up" in nature not only for osmosis to particular physical phenomena, such a
operate given certain conditions but the conditions the container on the table going through
for it to operate are present in nature. Nor is it a brane that was also placed in the
matter of organic versus the inorganic. Evaporation yesterday morning. It seems bizarr
(of e.g., sea water) is a process which is involved in particular phenomenon an example of
the replenishing of the atmosphere with moisture. An example of a process would be osmosi
To take another case, and one more closely ana? would I feel happy talking of "partic
logous to the case of the pile of bricks falling over, osmosis" or "instances." The relations
we might easily speak of the process whereby snow tion does seem somewhat analogous
builds up on mountains, then begins toppling and token relationship, but this is not an an
piles up toward the bottom; we might envision this I find particularly exciting or illumin
occurring again and again over a single season. But Perhaps the most helpful analogy to
bricks do not have a way of piling up and then ship in question is that of the relation
a rule and that which is done in acco
falling over. If snow did not act this way, but one
day a bolt of lightning struck a snow-covered moun? that rule. And this is a double-barrel
tain and the snow cascaded down in just the way First, things done in accordance with
described above, this would not be a process insofar cases, examples, instances, or tokens
as we conceive of the lightning striking here as being either. And, secondly, to talk of a
an accident, a chance occurrence. talking of rules, is immediately to
Such considerations, then, indicate why stipu? physical phenomena a certain pattern
lating what we are henceforth to call an "intrusion" zation, to bring them into focus as bein
on a causal system in the case of a pile of bricks mere happenings without rhyme or
falling over will not make such an occurrence into discovery and examination of the pro
a process. This is because piles of bricks, as well as covery and examination of the princip
the causes of their falling over in a particular way, to which the physical world runs. Ana
are not "set up" in nature. The other side of this adoption of a rule is the attempt t
same coin is given in our saying, upon seeing a pile principles according to which action
of bricks being set up and then scattered, that this are to be carried out. But this is only
was either an accident or fantastic coincidence or and like all analogies, the trick is to k
else the work of some agent. (The fact that human to push it. I prefer to stop here.

University of California, Irvine Received October 27, ig

4 A test for whether a process "occurs" or is a process we employ, that is, a series o
can speak of "inducing" it. We can induce osmosis or evaporation or fermentation, b

This content downloaded from 93.243.96.237 on Fri, 21 Jun 2019 17:36:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms