In this paper I develop a theory of 'function' and function as a deontic modal word and phenomenon. Kratzer’s account of the semantics for the deontic modals is invoked and using her approach a formal schema for the semantics of 'function'-sentences is proposed. My account of function is a modalized and extended version of Cummins’ systems-type account of function. In the biological and physical sciences, on this account, function is a complex empirical deontic modal property. It is built on (...) the property of X’s doing Y well enough to enable Z, which is implicitly deontic because of the evaluative but nonetheless empirical in its biological and physical applications. This account of function resolves many of the traditional puzzles about biological and physical function, and extends naturally to include the other types of function. With a variant treatment of the semantics, this account is argued also to apply to mathematical function, where it is shown to be interestingly related to Frege’s account of function. (shrink)

Is it possible to know anything about life we have not yet encountered? We know of only one example of life: our own. Given this, many scientists are inclined to doubt that any principles of Earth’s biology will generalize to other worlds in which life might exist. Let’s call this the “N = 1 problem.” By comparison, we expect the principles of geometry, mechanics, and chemistry would generalize. Interestingly, each of these has predictable consequences when applied to biology. The surface-to-volume (...) property of geometry, for example, limits the size of unassisted cells in a given medium. This effect is real, precise, universal, and predictive. Furthermore, there are basic problems all life must solve if it is to persist, such as resistance to radiation, faithful inheritance, and energy regulation. If these universal problems have a limited set of possible solutions, some common outcomes must consistently emerge. In this chapter, I discuss the N = 1 problem, its implications, and my response (Mariscal 2014). I hold that our current knowledge of biology can justify believing certain generalizations as holding for life anywhere. Life on Earth may be our only example of life, but this is only a reason to be cautious in our approach to life in the universe, not a reason to give up altogether. In my account, a candidate biological generalization is assessed by the assumptions it makes. A claim is accepted only if its justification includes principles of evolution, but no contingent facts of life on Earth. (shrink)

Recent advances in genetics and neurobiology have greatly increased the degree of variation that one finds in what is taken to provide the biological foundations of our species-specific linguistic capacities. In particular, this variation seems to cast doubt on the purportedly homogeneous nature of the language faculty traditionally captured by the concept of “Universal Grammar.” In this article we discuss what this new source of diversity reveals about the biological reality underlying Universal Grammar. Our discussion leads us to (...) support (1) certain hypotheses advanced in evolutionary developmental biology that argue for the existence of robust biological mechanisms capable of canalizing variation at different levels, and (2) a bottom-up perspective on comparative cognition. We conclude by sketching future directions for what we call “comparative biolinguistics,” specifying which experimental directions may help us succeed in this new research avenue. (shrink)

Stephen Hawking’s caution against messaging extraterrestrial intelligence is a claim of universal biology and is probably false.

Synthetic biology aims to synthesize novel biological systems or redesign existing ones. The field has raised numerous philosophical questions, but most especially what is novel to this field. In this article I argue for a novel take, since the dominant ways to understand synthetic biology’s specificity each face problems. Inspired by the examination of the work of a number of chemists, I argue that synthetic biology differentiates itself by a new regime of articulation, i.e. a new way of articulating (...) the questions and phenomena it wants to address. Instead of describing actual existing biological systems, the field aims to describe biological possibilities. In the second part I corroborate this hypothesis through a comparison between early research in the field of the origins of life and contemporary synthetic biologists, who are not so much interested in the historical origin of life on Earth, but rather in a universal biology of the possible origins of any life whatsoever. (shrink)

Here is a universal biology that draws upon the contributions of Aristotle, Kant, and Hegel to unravel the mystery of life and conceive what is essential to living things anywhere they may arise. The book develops a philosopher’s guide to life in the universe, conceiving how nature becomes a biosphere in which life can emerge, what are the basic life processes common to any organism, how evolution can give rise to the different possible forms of life, and what distinguishes (...) the essential life forms from one another. (shrink)

T he term emergence is used to describe the appearance of new properties that arise when a system exceeds a certain level of size or complexity, properties that are absent from the constituents of the system. It is a concept often summed up by the phrase that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” and it is a key notion in the burgeoning field of complexity science. Life is often cited as a classic example of an emergent (...) phenomenon: no atoms of my body are living, yet I am living (see, for example, Morowitz [1]). Biological organisms depend on the processes of their constituent parts, yet they nevertheless exhibit a degree of autonomy from their parts (see, for example, Kauffman [2]). How can this be? These seem to be contradictory properties. (shrink)

Vertebrate paleontology was not readily incorporated into interdisciplinary activities at the University of Chicago. During the university’s first forty years serious disputes arose over the subject’s parameters and departmental affiliation. Only after World War II did a cooperative, interdisciplinary program emerge. Changes in biology and geology influenced that development, but even more important were local research and educational initiatives that provided the impetus and resources to create an innovative program.

While Darwin pictured organismal evolution as “descent with modification” more than 150 years ago, a detailed reconstruction of the basic evolutionary transitions at the molecular level is only emerging now. In particular, the evolution of today's protein structures and their concurrent functions has remained largely mysterious, as the destruction of these structures by mutation seems far easier than their construction. While the accumulation of genomic and structural data has indicated that proteins are related via common ancestors, naturally occurring protein structures (...) are often considered to be evolutionarily robust, thus leaving open the question of how protein structures can be remodelled while selective pressure forces them to function. New information on the proteome, however, increasingly explains the nature of local and global conformational diversity in protein evolution, which allows the acquisition of novel functions via molecular transition forms containing ancestral and novel structures in dynamic equilibrium. Such structural plasticity may permit the evolution of new protein folds and help account for both the origins of new biological functions and the nature of molecular defects. BioEssays 29:1095–1104, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

In On the Origin of Autonomy; A New look at the Major Transitions in Evolution, Bernd Rosslenbroich argues that an increase of the relative autonomy of individual organisms is one of the central large-scale patterns in evolution. I begin by presenting how Rosslenbroich understands the notion of autonomy in biology and how he correlates its increase to different sets of morphological, physiological, and behavioral characteristics of various biological systems. I briefly discuss his view of directionality in evolution with respect (...) to its ontological and epistemological status. Then, I discuss the advantages of his thesis, and especially the emphasis on the organism as the subject rather than the object of evolution. I argue in detail that his account could benefit from a more exact conception of autonomy, and I discuss six problems related to the operationalization of his concept as applied to various theoretical issues. (shrink)

In Search Of Mechanisms is a book about the methodology of biology. It is a work by Carl Craver and Lindley Darden, both of whom are well-known individually for their advocacy of mechanistic explanation—in the neurosciences and in the fields of genetics, cytology and molecular biology . Here, the two join forces to give a unified model of biological explanation, not limited to a particular area of biological enquiry, as rooted in the search for mechanisms.The objectives of the (...) book are threefold. First, it sets out to describe what biologists do. This first objective can be described as the goal of making biology more comprehensible. If biology involves the search for mechanisms, then one cannot understand the history of biology and its current practice without understanding mechanisms. Secondly, the book seeks to give a proscriptive account of explanation and the process of explaining some phenomena. This second objective relates to an interest in contributing to the .. (shrink)

In the present article, a depiction of complexity versus time will be used for the construction of a novel form of a tree of life, called The Pattern of Life, comprising the biological, cultural, and scientific forms of the evolutionary process. This diagram accentuates the implication of the successive modifications of developmental programs, in the cultural and scientific realms coupled to a feedback mechanism that is decisive for the accelerating pace of complexity growth, also suggested to be of support (...) of a cautious prediction of future evolution. (shrink)

Although there is little empirical doubt of the cerebral base of consciousness, it still has an unapproachable quality about it. Gerald Edelman and Giulio Tononi offer a hypothesis that should give us the tool to start disentangling the 'world knot', an image Arthur Schopenhauer used to describe the problem of the origin of consciousness. Their primary focus is not the richness in everyday experience, but the conditions that allow us that experiential richness -- a difficult enough task, as most would (...) admit reading the book. It shows how the cranial barrier can be overcome by new observation techniques, producing a plethora of experimental data in support of the concepts and theories described in the book. This material leads to the formulation of the dynamic-core hypothesis which describes the necessary biological conditions for consciousness. (shrink)

I taught for 8 years at a moderate evangelical liberal arts college. At one faculty meeting the topic turned to the challenge of dealing with controversial topics in the classroom, a pressing question given that many of our students came from extremely conservative backgrounds. One faculty member commented that he and his colleagues in the sciences avoided problems by never using the word “evolution” in the classroom. A number of us from the humanities immediately expressed shock and dismay. In response, (...) our colleague reassured us that science faculty were indeed teaching evolution, but they had learned they could be spared student resistance and parental phone calls by replacing the word “evolution” with “development.”I was reminded of this while reading Adam Shapiro’s fine book, Trying Biology: The Scopes Trial, Textbooks, and the Antievolution Movement in American Schools. Central to Trying Biology is the argument that the Scopes Trial was not the inevitable result of an eternal con .. (shrink)

Space and time, which should properly be taken conjointly, are both communicatively produced and created with certain contextual perspectives—they are not independent physical entities. The standpoint of production makes the relationship between space and time comprehensible. They can either be mental-subjective, physical-objective, or social-intersubjective. Social and intersubjective (or E-series) spacetime might shed new light on biological thinking. For general readers, this paper provides a clue regarding an alternative conceptualization of spacetime based on biology.

Based on data from a survey of biological scientists at 125 American universities, this article explores how the commercialization of the university affects the problems academic scientists pursue and argues that this reorientation of scientific agendas results in a shift from science in the public interest to science for private goods. Drawing on perspectives from Bourdieu on how actors employ strategic practices toward the accumulation of social capital and acquire dispositional and perceptional tendencies that in turn recondition social structures, (...) the commercialization of the university is construed not as something that ‘‘happens to,’’ but rather something that ‘‘happens through’’ academic scientists. The specific shape and direction of the commercialization of the university is therefore influenced by how scientists incorporate the new resources and social relations of commercialization into their scientific practice and how their creative engagement with shifting structural conditions remakes the culture of academic science. (shrink)

When the University of Chicago opened its four-year medical program in 1929, the medical departments were established on the same footing as other biological departments. One of the first priorities was to build a department of psychiatry based on an interdisciplinary and holistic research program with important social implications. This plan was soon frustrated by structural factors and conflicts of interest both internal and external to the university. The story illuminates crucial dilemmas of neuropsychiatry in the interwar years and (...) suggests some of the limits to the pursuit of biology at the University of Chicago. (shrink)

This paper is interested in the relationship between evolutionary thinking and moral behavior and commitments, ethics. There is a traditional way of forging or conceiving of the relationship. This is traditional evolutionary ethics, known as Social Darwinism. Many think that this position is morally pernicious, a redescription of the worst aspects of modern, laissez-faire capitalism in fancy biological language. It is argued that, in fact, there is much more to be said for Social Darwinism than many think. In respects, (...) it could be and was an enlightened position to take; but it flounders on the matter of justification. Universally, the appeal is to progress—evolution is progressive and, hence, morally we should aid its success. I argue, however, that this progressive nature of evolution is far from obvious and, hence, traditional social Darwinism fails. There is another way to do things. This is to argue that the search for justification is mistaken. Ethics just is. It is an adaptation for humans living socially and has exactly the same status as other adaptations, like hands and teeth and genitalia. As such, ethics is something with no standing beyond what it is. However, if we all thought that this was so, we would stop being moral. So part of the experience of ethics is that it is more than it is. We think that it has an objective referent. In short, ethics is an illusion put in place by our genes to make us good social cooperators. (shrink)

Several philosophers of biology have argued for the claim that the generalizations of biology are historical and contingent.1–5 This claim divides into the following sub-claims, each of which I will contest: first, biological generalizations are restricted to a particular space-time region. I argue that biological generalizations are universal with respect to space and time. Secondly, biological generalizations are restricted to specific kinds of entities, i.e. these generalizations do not quantify over an unrestricted domain. I will challenge this (...) second claim by providing an interpretation of biological generalizations that do quantify over an unrestricted domain of objects. Thirdly, biological generalizations are contingent in the sense that their truth depends on special initial and background conditions. I will argue that the contingent character of biological generalizations does not diminish their explanatory power nor is it the case that this sort of contingency is exclusively characteristic of biological generalizations. (shrink)

The emergence of new biological traits is landmarks of evolutionary progress. However, when, how, and why do they appear? We propose a universal mechanism, a Buffering Mechanism of Evolution to understand these questions. We speculate that all organisms possess this potential buffer capacity. This capacity would be triggered by the pressures, natural or artificial, to express the intrinsic potential variants. The potential buffer capacity of the organism increases for further selections as evolutionary progress occurs. The higher the evolutionary level (...) of the organism, the greater the potential buffer capacity, and importantly, the buffer capacity versus the pressures of selections will result. However, when the pressures are far more than the potential capacity of the targets, the natural or artificial pressures then compromise the genetic buffering system resulting in possible species extinction if the emergence of new traits fails. (shrink)

The author argues that biological evolution and genetic determinants rather than prohihiting or providing purpose make man's freedom and creation of his own purpose possible. Numerous interesting and well-illustrated corrections of misconceptions of biological theory are provided; some are commonplace, but others are genuinely enlightening.--J. R.

This review essay provides an analysis of the context and content of Trevor Pearce’s Pragmatism’s Evolution. The work highlights the bond between organisms and their environments.

We build a topological model, based on intuitionistic logic, for multi-agent biological systems (such as _Physarum polycephalum_, bacterial colonies or any other swarm), reacting to external nourishment stimuli. Our construction follows the topological description of brain activity, where particles (neurons) are activated by an external environment, represented by a topological space _X_ with an open cover \(\{U_i:i\in I\}\). The brain builds the model of this external space via the nerve (trace) of a topological space _X_. Here the body of (...) _Physarum polycephalum_ or a swarm made of networks of tubular structures represents a nerve (trace) of _X_ also which means that _Physarum polycephalum_ or a swarm gains orientation in the space of external stimuli even in the absence of any neural system. The logic of living organisms is based on open subsets of _X_ and thus can be represented by Heyting algebra (i.e. intuitionistically). We also consider the generalisation of the nerve construction to a categorical context, where the category is determined by the network structures of multi-agent biological system. This model can be generalised up to simulating the behaviour of any swarm by means of intuitionistic logic. (shrink)