The Objectivity of Organizational Functions
- 6 Downloads
We critique the organizational account of biological functions by showing how its basis in the closure of constraints fails to be objective. While the account treats constraints as objective features of physical systems, the number and relationship of potential constraints are subject to potentially arbitrary redescription by investigators. For example, we show that self-maintaining systems such as candle flames can realize closure on a more thorough analysis of the case, contradicting the claim that these “simple” systems lack functional organization. This also raises problems for Moreno and Mossio’s associated theory of biological autonomy, which asserts that living beings are distinguished by their possession of a closed system of constraints that channel and regulate their metabolic processes.
KeywordsBiological autonomy Feed forward loop Network motifs Constraints Biological individuality Biological function
We would like to thank the University of Michigan and its Society of Fellows program for providing us with the time and support to collaborate on this project, and Erin Barringer-Sterner for help designing our figures. We also thank the referees and editors for their detailed and constructive feedback, which helped improve the manuscript substantially.
- Achinstein P (1984) The pragmatic character of explanation. In: Philosophy of Science, pp 275–292Google Scholar
- Alon U (2007a) An introduction to systems biology: design principles of biological circuits. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- Arnellos A, Moreno A (2012) How functional differentiation originated in prebiotic evolution. Ludus Vitalis 37:1–23Google Scholar
- Artiga M (2011) Re-organizing organizational accounts of function. Appl Ontol 6(2):105–124Google Scholar
- Atkins PW (1984) The second law. Freeman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Goldstein AM (2011) A defense of Achinstein’s pragmatism about explanation. In: Philosophy of science matters: the philosophy of Peter Achinstein. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp 72–83Google Scholar
- Kauffman SA (2000) Investigations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Rigden DJ (ed) (2017) From protein structure to function with bioinformatics. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
- Saborido C, Moreno A (2015) Biological pathology from an organizational perspective. Theor Med 36(1):83–95Google Scholar
- Varela FJ (1979) Principles of biological autonomy. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wimsatt WC (2007) Re-engineering philosophy for limited beings: piecewise approximations to reality. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar