Em 1973, Georges Canguilhem publica, na Encyclopédie Universalis, um extenso verbete histórico do conceito “Vida” na biologia e nas ciências da vida. A seguinte tradução do verbete é baseada na segunda edição, reimpressão publicada em 1989, nas páginas 546-553.

Tandis qu'Homo Sapiens a entrepris de détruire tout ce qui vit sur cette planète, la défense du vivant s'impose en ce début de XXIe siècle comme la priorité politique et philosophique absolue. Mais pour respecter le vivant, il faut d'abord le comprendre. Comment classer les différentes formes de vie? Pourquoi la conscience existe-t-elle? Les plantes éprouvent-elles la souffrance? Et les poissons? Qui sont les viandales? Les bouchers sont-ils des assassins? Pourquoi faut-il parler de génocide animal? Existe-t-il des formes (...) de vie que l'on peut combattre ou sacrifier? Pourquoi la nature bonne est-elle une illusion? Qu'est-ce que l'existence pour un humain? Comment s'assurer d'avoir été vivant avant de mourir? Notre court passage sur cette planète peut-il avoir un sens? En convoquant la biologie et la philosophie, Vivant retrace l'histoire de la vie sur Terre, depuis les premières bactéries apparues il y a près de 4 milliards d'années jusqu'à l'émergence de l'intelligence artificielle. En prolongeant une prophétie de Darwin, ce livre annonce la naissance d'une nouvelle espèce humaine, qui remplacera la nôtre : Homo ethicus, l'homme moral. Ce sera lui, ou la fin de l'humanité. (shrink)

Analyser les origines de l'apparition du concept de zoonite comme unité d'organisation segmentaire en zoologie demande de se placer dans le contexte de la première moitié du dix-neuvième siècle, plus spécifiquement vers 1826-1839. Si les origines de la problématique remontent à Goethe, d'une part, à des botanistes tels que de Candolle d'autre part, la thèse de Moquin-Tandon sur les dédoublements chez les végétaux (1826) est une étape essentielle. Les hypothèses de multiplication et de diversification des organes arrangés selon une symétrie, (...) préside aussi à ses recherches sur les Hirusinées (1827). Le zoonite est une unité organique élémentaire pouvant se démultiplier et il est structuré symétriquement. Mais, ce qui le caractérise est sa composition lui conférant une autonomie. En 1832, Dugès regardera le rapport entre zoonite et organisme total sous l'angle de la conformité organique. Il déduit de ses observations les lois de multiplicité des organismes, de disposition, de modification et de coalescence. Cette dernière loi deviendra primordiale chez Dugès en 1838 pour expliquer l'évolution de l'être composé ainsi que la croissance embryonnaire. Mais, le zoonitisme des années 1830 ne constitue pas une théorie scientifique, même s'il servira ultérieurement de référence, en particulier dans la physiologie animale d'Edwards. To analyse the origins of the appearance of the zoonite concept as a unit of segmentary organisation in zoology requires positioning oneself in the context of the first half of the nineteenth century, more specifically in the years 1826-1839. If the origins of the problem go back to Goethe, on the one hand, and to botanists such as de Candolle on the other, the thesis of Moquin-Tandon on the splitting of plants (1826) is an essential step. The hypotheses of multiplication and diversification of organs arranged according to a symmetry, also presides over his research on the Hirudinées (1827). The zoonite is an elementary organic unit which can multiple itself and is structured symmetrically. But what characterises it is that its composition confers on it a certain autonomy. In 1832, Dugès regarded the connection between zoonite and total organism from the angle of organic conformity. He deduced from his observations the laws of multiplicity of organisms, of disposition, of modification and of coalescence. This last law would become vital to Dugès in 1838 for explaining the evolution of the composed being as well as embryonic development. But zoonitism in the 1830s did not constitute a scientific theory, even if it would ultimately serve as a reference, in particular for the animal physiology of Edwards. (shrink)

The author assumes that the biological evolution must reflect itself also in the energetic processes of the organism. Several concept are discussed, in view of a characterization of the energetic economy of the organism. Two of these are thought to have particular significance related to evolution: the energetic efficiency and the capacity for energetic production . E is the ratio of the performed useful work to the amount of energy “spent”; P is the ratio of the performed useful (...) work to the product of the mass of the living system and time. An evolution of both E and P during the animal phylogenesis is assumed. The evolution of E is generally evident at the level of more elementary metabolic processes, while that of P at the level of more complex functions or of the organism as a whole. In many cases, the increase of P is associated with a decrease of E. The main evolutionary feature of biological energetic economy is the increase of the capacity for energetic production. This holds true even if the increase of P can be achieved only at the expense of a reduction of the energetic efficiency, of a “waste” of energy, especially in the most highly developed systems of the organism.L'évolution biologique doit se refléter, selon l'avis de l'auteur, aussi dans les processus énergétiques de l'organisme. On discute quelques notions qui pourraient caractériser l'économie énergétique de celui-ci. Deux de celles-ci ont une signification évolutive particulière: le rendement énergétique et la capacité de production énergétique . E est le rapport du travail util effectué à la quantité d'énergie “dépensée”; P est le rapport du travail util effectué au produit de la masse du système vivant avec de le temps. L'auteur considère qu'il y a une évolution des deux grandeurs au cours de la phylogénèse animale. L'évolution d'E se manifeste spécialement au niveau des processus métaboliques élémentaires, tandis que celle de P au niveau des fonctions plus complexes ou de l'organisme entier. Dans beaucoup de cas, l'accroissement de P entraîne une diminution de E. Le trait évolutif principal de l'énergétique biologique c'est l'accroissement de la capacité de production énergétique, même si cela suppose une réduction du rendement, une “dissipation” d'énergie, surtout dans les systèmes les plus développés de l'organisme.Die biologische Evolution soll sich, nach dem Erachten des Verfassers, auch in den energetischen Vorgange des Organismus kundtun. Es werden einige Begriffe erörtert, welche den Energiehaushalt des Organismus kennzeichnen können. Zwei von diesen Begriffen haben eine besondere entwicklungsgeschichtliche Bedeutung: die energetische Leistung und das Vermögen zur Energieproduktion . E ist das Verhältnis der geleisteten nützlichen Arbeit zur verbrauchten Energiemenge; P ist das Verhältnis der nützlichen Arbeit zum Produkt von Masse des lebenden Systems und Zeit. Der Verfasser ist der Meinung, dass es eine Evolution von E und P während der tierischen Phylogenesis gäbe. Die Evolution von E äussert sich meist in der Ebene der elementaren metabolischen Vorgänge, hingegen die von P an komplexeren Funktionen. In zahlreichen Fällen, vermindert E während P wächst. Die evolutive Grundzug der biologischen Energetik ist das Anwachsen der Fähigkeit zur Energieproduktion, sogar wenn dieses nur auf Kosten einer Verminderung der energetischen Leistung, einer „Vergeudung“ der Energie verwirklichen kann. (shrink)

Ce travail pose la question des critères de la „progression biologique“ , d'après les documents fossiles, dans le monde des organismes, c'est-à-dire de ce perfectionnement qui ne s'arrête pas à l'intérieur du cadre d'un phylum donné, comme le „perfectionnement de l'adaptation“, mais qui conduit, au-de-là de phylums de rang différent, à des types supérieurs, par exemple, des Poissons pas les Amphibies et les Reptiles jusqu'aux Mammifères ou aux Oiseaux. Deux groupes de critères y sont recensés en détail, leur contenu est (...) exposé, et on les examine pour voir s'ils caractérisent sans ambiguïté la „progression biologique“. Le premier groupe comprend les critères de „différenciation croissante“ et „d'intégration harmonique”. Ils sont fondés sur la différenciation morphophysiologique ou plus exactement sur la „totalité” des organismes, c'est-à-dire leur multiplicité dans l'unité. Le second groupe de critères, à savoir „indépendance croissante du milieu” et „autonomie individuelle croissante”, part des relations de l'organisme au milieu et aux autres formes vivantes et souligne la „subsistence” des individus, c'est-à-dire leur plus ou moins grande indépendence ou leur stabilité interne. Comme „totalité” et „subsistence” sont les éléments décisifs d'une définition biologique de l'individu, on peut dire que la „progression biologique“ d'un organisme est d'autant plus élevée que sa totalité et subsistence et par là son être individuel sont plus accusés.Tous les critères mentionnés ne sont pas uniformes. Les motifs de leur imprécision sont divers. Tout d'abord, il n'y a pas encore de définition unique et complète de l'individu biologique, de sorte qu'on ne peut circonscrire d'une manière univoque ce qui confère à un organisme une individualité plus forte ou moins forte. Ensuite les lignées au-delà desquelles s'accomplissent des perfectionnements, et dont l'une reste intérieur au phylum , tandis que l'autre le transcende , sont entrelacées si intimement et d'une façon si particulière qu'elles ne se laissent pas séparer franchement et décrire rigoureusement selon leurs signes distinctifs. Tout représentant d'un phylum, peu importe son palier, est en effet nécessairement inséré dans un milieu et en quelque façon spécialisé. Il n'existe pas des types à caractères phylétiques purs, qui ne montrent dans aucune direction un „perfectionnement de l'adaptation”, mais seulement des marques caractéristiques de la „progression biologique”. Enfin nous ne connaissons pas les restes fossiles que le développement ou la formation des grands phylums du règne animal, à savoir du rameau des Vertébrés et des divers groupes des Invertébrés, mais non pas le plus intéressant et le plus important, leur „progression biologique” jusqu'au degré d'organisation qu'ils présentent déjà à l'époque du Silurien ou plutôt du Cambrien. C'est cela seulement qui permettrait une vue plus profonde sur la nature de la „progression biologique”.Die Arbeit stellt die Frage nach den Kriterien des fossil belegten Biologischen Aufstiegs” der Organismenwelt, d.h. derjenigen Vervollkommnung, die sich nicht innerhalb des Rahmens eines gegebenen Bauplans hält, wie die „Anpassungsvervollkommnung”, sondern über verschiedenrangige Baupläne hinweg zu höheren Typen führt, z.B. von den Fischen über die Amphibien und Reptilien zu den Säugern bzw. Vögeln. Ausführlich werden zwei Gruppen von Kriterien besprochen, ihr Inhalt dargelegt und ihre Eindeutigkeit zur Charakterisierung des „Biologischen Aufstiegs” untersucht. Die erste Gruppe umfasst die Kriterien der „zunehmenden Differenzierung” und „harmonischeren Integration”. Diese legen die morphologisch-physiologische Differenzierung oder genauer die „Ganzheit” der Organismen zugrunde, d.h. ihre Vielheit in der Einheit. Die zweite Kriteriengruppe, nämlich „zunehmende Umweltunabhängigkeit” und „zunehmende individuelle Autonomie”, geht von den Beziehungen des Organismus zur Umwelt und zu andern Lebensformen aus und betont die „Subsistenz” der Individuen, d.h. ihr grösseres oder geringeres Losgelöstsein oder ihre Selbständigkeit. Da nun „Ganzheit” und „Subsistenz” die entscheidenden Elemente einer biologischen Definition des Individuums sind, lässt sich sagen, dass der „Biologische Aufstieg” eines Organismus um so höher ist, je stärker seine Ganzheit und Subsistenz und damit sein Individuumsein ist.Eindeutigkeit kommt allen genannten Kriterien nicht zu. Die Gründe für ihre Unschärfe sind verschiedener Art. Zunächst gibt es noch keine eindeutige und vollständige Definition des biologischen Individuums, so dass sich nicht eindeutig umreissen lässt, was einem Organismus eine stärkere oder weniger starke Individualität verleiht. Dann sind die Linien, über die sich Vervollkommnungen vollziehen und von denen die eine innerhalb des Bauplans bleibt , die andere aber über ihn hinausführt so innig und in so eigenartiger Weise miteinander verflochten, dass sie sich nicht sauber scheiden und in ihren charakteristischen Merkmalen genau beschreiben lassen. Jeder Vertreter eines Bauplans, ganz gleich von welcher Ranghöhe, ist nämlich notwendig in eine Umwelt eingepasst und irgendwie spezialisiert. Es gibt keine Typen mit reinen Bauplanmerkmalen, die nach keiner Richtung hin eine „Anpassungsvervollkommnung”, sondern nur Merkmale des „Biologischen Aufstiegs” aufweisen. Schliesslich kennen wir fossil nur die Entfaltung oder Ausgestaltung der Grossbaupläne des Tierreichs, nämlich des Wirbeltierstammes und der verschiedenen Gruppen der Wirbellosen, nicht aber das Interessanteste und Wichtigste, nämlich ihren „Biologischen Aufstieg” zu der organisatorischen Höhe, mit der sie sich im Silur bzw. im Kabrium bereits vorstellen. Das erst würde einen tieferen Einblick in das Wesen des „Biologischen Aufstiegs” vermitteln.This article deals with the question of the criteria for the “biological ascent” of the organic world, resting on fossil evidence. That is, of that improvement which is not only restricted to the framework of a given “general structure” as is the “improvement of adaptation”, but which also leads beyond general structures of differentiated levels to a higher type,e.g. from the fishes through the amphibians and reptiles to the mammals or birds. Two groups of criteria are discussed at length, their content exposed and their univocity for the characterisation of this “biological ascent” is examined. The first group includes the criteria of “increasing differentiation” and “more harmonious integration”. The basis for these is the morphological-physiological differentiation, or more exactly, the “totality” of the organisms,i.e., their variety-in-unity. The second group of criteria, “increasing independence of environment” and “increasing individual autonomy”, is derived from the relationships of the organism to its environment and to other living forms, and stresses the “subsistence” of individuals,i.e., their greater or lesser degree of independence or self-sufficiency. Now since “totality” and “subsistence” are the decisive elements in a biological definition of the individual, it may be said that the “biological ascent” of an organism is higher, the more perfect its totality and subsistence and therefore its individuality is.The criteria mentioned are not univocal. The reasons for this lack of clarity are varied. First of all, there is no univocal and complete definition of the biological individual, so that it cannot be exactly stated just what gives an organism a more or less perfect individuality. Then the lines, along which improvements are made, and according to which the one remains within the general structure and the other goes beyond the general structure , are so intimately and singularly bound together, that they cannot be cleanly distinguished, and their characteristic notes exactly described. For each representative of a general structure, regardless of its level, is necessarily fitted into an environment and somehow or other specialised. There are no types with only notes of the general structure which show in no direction an “improvment of adaption”, but only the signs of “biological ascent”. Finally, we only have fossil evidence for the development or deployment of the “great general structures” of the animal world, namely that of the vertebrates and of the different groups of invertebrates, not for the most interesting and most important, that is, their “biological ascent” to the level of organisation with which they are found in the Silurian or Cambrian periods. Only that would give us a deeper insight into the essence of “biological ascent”. (shrink)

Jakob von Uexküll’s problematic is manifested in his paradoxical portraiture of form within the plan of nature: the one a sensual schema and the other a transsensual ideal form. At first sight, Uexküll’s belief in the Platonic and the Reformational notions of the immobile becoming of form seems to be a resignation from the heated debates among his contemporary materialists, vitalists, dynamists, and evolutionists. However, in terms of the Kantian subjective teleology, Uexküll’s appropriation of the ancient philosophy reinstates the invisible, (...) static, but repetitive cycle as his regulating principle in the observation of the activity of animals. This regulating principle distinguishes itself from the rule of resemblance established by the appearances and fossil remains of animals, which is linear, incomplete, and digressive. In the light of Michel Foucault, the transition from the visible to the invisible recoups the study of nature from the living beings (les êtres vivants) to the life itself (la vie), from natural philosophy to biology. My study suggests that we recast Uexküll’s sign theory from his observations on the crux that models and triggers an animal to action in its Umwelt. Bracketing Uexküll’s transcendental configuration of form and image, we still find that schema, in itssensual and functional context, evolves from a reflection of the objects to a summary of their features plus an ignorance of their proper names. Uexküll's erasure of proper names (in different languages) that directs our attention to the presentation in its pure form (Gestalt) not only constitutes an important step in epistemology, but also in a life science that meticulously delves into the genotypes. (shrink)

Le problème du vivant n'est plus un problème « local », il traverse et bouscule tous les domaines, depuis les fondements de l'esprit (dans le cerveau) jusqu'à la préservation de la vie (dans l'univers) en passant par le rapport de l'homme et de l'animal, le soin et le pouvoir, la littérature et l'art. Mais rien ne serait plus trom-peur que d'y voir une évidence réductrice : de la pensée aux neurones, de l'histoire à la survie, de l'éthique à la (...) bioéthique, de la littérature à la biographie, etc. C'est comme problème, à travers une diversité d'approches nouvelles, que se constitue le moment philosophique (scientifique et historique) du vivant. Le but de ce livre est d'explorer ce domaine, c'est-à-dire non seulement d'en donner une carte, mais de le parcourir en acte, de la métaphysique à l'esthétique en passant par la biologie, l'anthropologie, l'éthique et la politique. Ce ne sont pas des études « sur » le vivant comme objet extérieur, mais des interventions enga-gées et constituant ce moment par leurs relations elles-mêmes. Pages de début Présentation Première partie - Métaphysique Un moment du vivant?? L'acte du vivant Vie lacunaire et vie approfondie Vie de douleur Deuxième partie - Biologie La différence entre santé et maladie Revenir au concept de Nature Les bases d'une éthique transphylétique Le moment écologique Troisième partie - Anthropologie L'homme, exception dans la nature?? Le sophisme de l'animalité humaine La catastrophe entre vie et justice Quatrième partie - Politique Le nazisme, ou la «?vie?» comme «?norme?» Pour une autre approche de la biopolitique Politiques du vivant, politiques de la nature Biopolitique des sentinelles Cinquième partie - Éthique Répondre du vivant Vie, médecine, responsabilité Le soin maternel à la lumière de l'ontologie de la relation La vie à tout prix?? Sixième partie - Esthétique La vie de l'image comme médiation Se sentir vivant Hommes et bêtes à vif Corps.EXT RemerciementsPages de fin. (shrink)

Life as a complicated process is composed of causal phenomena. But even if we know the reasons of all that happens in a living organism, we do not know what life really is. The problem of intercausal relation, of “causal structure” remains. The reason why a process takes place, must be found by analysis, causal structures are found by synthesis of the results of this analysis. Causal structures are characterized by two kinds of equilibrium: energetic and specific equilibrium. A (...) state of physical equilibrium is characterized by a minimum of free energy; a biological energetic equilibrium is an organized one, where the vital factors activate the production of energy by each other and force each other to limit that production to the necessary measure. A specific equilibrium is characterized by the properties of its factors, properties by which those factors act as a cause after having received a specific stimulation. Every factor possesses two specific properties, in accordance with the properties of two neighbouring factors, as a link between two other links in a chain . Both forms of equilibrium authorise us to speak of living systems as a “whole”. In the second part of this paper we treat the dynamic aspect of the functions of living systems as a “whole”. This dynamic aspect manifests itself in growth and probably in cortical functions. Blastomeres represent, when isolated, the “whole” of growing potentialities of a germe. In normal contact with each other they restrict themselves to produce a part of that “whole”, in harmony with that which other blastomeres produce. This harmonious restriction can be explained by interaction between all the blastomeres by which every blastomere suppresses in other blastomeres all that it will produce itself. Blastomeres must therefore act on other blastomees not according to their isolate “being”, but according to the influences which they undergo by all other blastomeres, that means according to their “rôle”. There must be a causal net of interaction between all the blastomeres and that net “as a whole” determines every step of growth. Such a net of relation determines also human history and sociology. Materialism only took account of isolated causes, vitalism only of the effect of the net of causal relations without understanding that such a net might be analysed. In reality there is neither materialism nor vitalism.La vie est un phénomène complexe, se composant de différents phénomènes causals, qui un jour peut-être seront réduits à la causalité physique et chimique. Cependant connaitre toutes les causes des phénomènes vitaux ne signifie pas connaître la vie. Le problème de la vie ne se borne pas aux rapports causals, mais implique surtout les rapports intercausals, c'est à dire l'harmonie ou l'équilibre de ses parties constituantes. La vie comme phénomène est provoquée par une „structure causale”. Tandis que les causes sont trouvées par l'analyse, les rapports intercausals doivent être recherchés par la synthèse, c'est-à-dire par la réconstruction de la réalité de l'organisme vivant en se servant des données analytiques. Le système vivant est en équilibre énergétique et spécifique. Les facteurs énergétiques sont interlacés de telle façon, qu'ils s'activent entre eux et qu'ils se forcent entre eux à se resteindre au développement de l'énergie nécessaire. Un équilibre physique c'est l'état d'énergie libre minimum, tandis que l'équilibre biologique c'est un état d'énergie organisée. Dans un équilibre spécifique on ne peut se borner aux effects causals se manifestant par un phénomène. Il faut décrire les rapports des propriétés spécifiques de tous les facteurs; ce sont ces propriétés qui leur permettent d'agir comme cause, lorsqu'-ils sont atteint d'une excitation spécifique. Les facteurs possèdent au moins deux propriétés spécifiques, adaptées à deux facteurs voisins, comme chaque anneau d'une chaine s'adaptant à deux anneaux voisins . Le fait que l'on trouve dans chaque individu ces deux formes d'équilibre nous donne le droit de créer le concept du „tout” par rapport auquel on peut constater l'harmonie de tous les tacteurs.C'est là le „tout statique”, reste encore le „tout dynamique” qui se manifeste par la croissance et probablement par les phénomènes se produisant dans l'écorce cérébrale, base des actes psychiques. Les parties représentent beaucoup de possibilités qui ne se réalisent pas; p.e. les blastomères peuvent représenter le „tout” de l'organisme, tandis qu'ils se borneront dans la croissance normale à la production d'une part de l'individu. Il y a une interaction entre tous les blastomères, de façon que, par la suppression ou par l'activation mutuelle, chaque partie réalise ce que lui laissent les autres et ce qui est en harmonie avec ce que produiront les autres. De cette façon il y aura de l'harmonie dans tout ce qui sera produit. Les parties agissent par cette interaction, non selon leur „être”, en tant que cellule isolée, mais selon leur „rôle” dans le „tout” du germe, rôle qui est déterminé par cette interaction mutuelle universelle. C'est cette interaction qui détermine le „patron causal”, responsable de chaque étappe de la coissance. Ainsi ce ne sont pas les facteus isolés, mais le réseau des rapports établis entre tous les facteurs, qui gouvernent les phénomènes de la croissance. Ce réseau, par activation ou par suppression, détermine à chaque instant les propriétés causales des parties, d'entre toutes les multiples possibilités. Les possibilités étant données dans les cellules, c'est le „tout” du réseau des rapports qui détermine la croissance. Le matérialisme n'a vu que les causes isolées, telles qu'ellés se manifestent dans les expériences des physiciens, grâce à la technique; le vitalisme n'a vu que le „tout”, sans tâcher de l'analyser afin de trouver à sa base le système causal compliqué, que nous avons tâché de décrire. Dans la réalité la théorie du causalisme ni celle du vitalisme le tiennent plus de bout. (shrink)

Et si certaines entités vivantes n'étaient pas matérielles? Potentiellement éternelles, en lutte pour la survie, elles évoluent. Elles constituent ce qui unit les êtres à travers le temps. Elles sont le fil de la vie. Ces entités vivantes immatérielles sont des informations. Elles existent à travers nous, dans nos gènes, dans notre culture, dans nos écosystèmes. La vie produit l'information, lit l'information et se définit par l'information qu'elle porte. Ce livre nous aide à comprendre le monde vivant d'une manière (...) toute nouvelle! Il est le résultat de discussions passionnées entre trois chercheurs qui, chacun à sa manière, étaient parvenus au même questionnement à propos de la nature. Ils nous proposent une nouvelle description du vivant, où la lutte pour l'existence n'est pas celle des êtres, mais des messages qui passent à travers eux et dont ils sont les hôtes éphémères. (shrink)

This paper investigates Hegel’s account of the animal organism as it is presented in the Philosophy of Nature, with a special focus on its normative implications. I argue that the notion of “organisation” is fundamental to Hegel’s theory of animal normativity. The paper starts by showing how a Hegelian approach takes up the scientific image of organism and assigns a basic explanatory role to the notion of “organisation” in its understanding living beings. Moving from this premise, the paper (...) turns to the group of accounts in contemporary theoretical biology known as “organisational accounts”, which offer a widely debated strategy for naturalizing teleology and normativity in organisms. As recent scholarship recognizes, these accounts explicitly rely on insights from Kant and Post-Kantianism. I make the historical and conceptual argument that Hegel’s view of the organism shares several basic commitments with OAs, especially regarding the notion of “organisational closure”. I assess the account of normativity that such accounts advance and its implications for how we approach Hegel. Finally, I argue that the notion of “organisation” is more fundamental to Hegel’s theory of animal normativity than the Aristotelian notion of “Gattung” or “species”, which by contrast appears derivative – at least in the Philosophy of Nature and the Lectures – and does not play the central role in his account maintained by some scholars. (shrink)

Despite hundreds of definitions, no consensus exists on a definition of life or on the closely related and problematic definitions of the organism and death. These problems retard practical and theoretical development in, for example, exobiology, artificial life, biology and evolution. This paper suggests improving this situation by basing definitions on a theory of a generalized particle hierarchy. This theory uses the common denominator of the “operator” for a unified ranking of both particles and organisms, from elementary particles to (...) animals with brains. Accordingly, this ranking is called “the operator hierarchy”. This hierarchy allows life to be defined as: matter with the configuration of an operator, and that possesses a complexity equal to, or even higher than the cellular operator. Living is then synonymous with the dynamics of such operators and the word organism refers to a select group of operators that fit the definition of life. The minimum condition defining an organism is its existence as an operator, construction thus being more essential than metabolism, growth or reproduction. In the operator hierarchy, every organism is associated with a specific closure, for example, the nucleus in eukaryotes. This allows death to be defined as: the state in which an organism has lost its closure following irreversible deterioration of its organization. The generality of the operator hierarchy also offers a context to discuss “life as we do not know it”. The paper ends with testing the definition’s practical value with a range of examples. (shrink)

Well prior to the invention of the term ‘biology’ in the early 1800s by Lamarck and Treviranus (and lesser-known figures in the decades prior), and also prior to the appearance of terms such as ‘organism’ under the pen of Leibniz and Stahl in the early 1700s, the question of ‘Life’, that is, the status of living organisms within the broader physico-mechanical universe, agitated different corners of the European intellectual scene. From modern Epicureanism to medical Newtonianism, from Stahlian animism to (...) the discourse on the ‘animal economy’ in vitalist medicine, models of living being were constructed in opposition to ‘merely anatomical’, structural, mechanical models. It is therefore striking that the classic narratives of the Scientific Revolution conspicuously avoid any consideration of what status to grant living beings in a newly physicalized universe (I discuss this in Wolfe 2011, 2019 chapt. 1). Neither Harvey, nor Boyle, nor Locke (to name some likely candidates, the latter having studied with Willis and collaborated with Sydenham) ever ask what makes organisms unique, or conversely, what does not. In this chapter I seek to establish how something we might call ‘the knowledge of Life’, to use an expression of Georges Canguilhem’s, emerged as part of early modernity without being part of the mainstream history of life science. This leads to the question, can one can correlate early modern “knowledge of life” with the emergence of a science called ‘biology’? (see Zammito 2018, Wolfe 2019, Bognon-Küss and Wolfe eds. 2019). It was once fashionable to speak of, e.g. ‘precursors of Darwin’, and then Canguilhem and Foucault famously did away with the category of precursor. But how then do we account for the phase that precedes the constitution of a science? With the case of biology, how do we account for the increasing fascination with the ontology of Life during the decades prior to the ‘naming of biology’, as McLaughlin has called it, at the end of the eighteenth century? This increased focus on Life and the ontology of Life sits awkwardly, both with mainstream narratives of the Scientific Revolution and of the history of biology. In seeking to address this increased focus (in which vitalism plays a role but was by no means the only conceptual actor: Wolfe 2020), I critically examine Foucault’s notorious claim (Foucault 1966) that there was no such thing as ‘Life’ in the eighteenth century and thus no such thing as biology. (shrink)

Nowadays “philosophy of biology” is taken to be the special study of a set of issues concerning selection, adaptation, and the characterization of a species. Though the reduction of biology to chemistry and physics remained a topic in the general philosophy of science syllabus through the 1970s, the concept of life subsequently lost even this marginal foothold in the curriculum. Hans.

Michael Nair-Collins and Franklin Miller are right to emphasise that, in order to deliberate responsibly about ethical and legal questions related to brain death and organ donation, it is crucial to answer the question of whether or not ‘brain death’i does indeed mark the biological death of the organism. Nonetheless, I disagree with the authors’ conclusion that brain death does not indicate the death of the human organism. Death can never be defined in merely biological terms, because any (...) biological conception of death relies on metaphysical presuppositions regarding what it means to be an ‘organism as a whole’, rather than an aggregate of cells and tissues. Death is a change in substance —that is, a change from one type of entity to another — not the cessation of all biological life. Organismal death occurs well before all of the organism’s parts irreversibly cease vital activity and decompose into inorganic matter. Biological life in some form can and usually does continue after organismal death at least for a time, with recent evidence indicating that animal cell networks continue to perform complex functions like stress response, immune response and inflammation response up to several days postmortem.1 With external support, many cells and tissues can continue to perform their functions ex vivo for long periods of time or even indefinitely.2 Henrietta Lax died in 1951, but cells derived from her cancerous cervical cells …. (shrink)

Cet article présente la conception hégélienne de la vie naturelle comme limite : la nature est la limite de l’esprit, et le vivant est une limite en soi. Examiné surtout dans l’animal, « vivre » équivaut à tracer les limites du vivant, dont on voit ainsi la plasticité fondamentale. La finitude du vivant se traduit en une imagination purement sensible, qui se réalise dans la création d’un espace-temps singulier ; le sens qui dirige cette activité vise à (...) reproduire une existence, non une forme, ce qui en fait plus un terme qu’un but de la téléologie animale. Or, si la nature vivante est la limite de l’esprit, peut-elle « surprendre » celui-ci ? Si la « surprise » dit l’apparition de l’inouï depuis la création libre, elle ne le peut pas, car la plasticité naturelle ne produit que la contingence de l’existence et de l’entendement. Mais la contingence ne soumet pas pour autant la nature intégralement à l’idée : en ce sens, la nature reste pour Hegel l’ « énigme » qui tient l’esprit en éveil.The article presents Hegel’s conception of natural life as a limit : nature is the limit of spirit, and the living being is a limit as such. Examined above all in the animal, life is the tracing of the limits of the living being, whose fundamental plasticity becomes manifest. The living being’s finitude is conveyed in its purely sensible imagination, which realises itself in the creation of a singular space-time ; the sense directing this activity aims at reproducing an existence, not a form, and such a sense is rather the end than the aim of animal teleology. Now, if living nature is spirit’s limit, can it « surprise » the latter ? It cannot, if « surprise » means the apparition of an unprecedented possibility of a free creation, for natural plasticity can only produce the contingencies of existence and understanding. But neither does the contingency of nature subjugate it integrally to idea : in this sense, nature remains for Hegel the « enigma » that keeps spirit awake. (shrink)

[ENGLISH] This article discusses the potential of synthetic biology to address fundamental questions in the philosophy of biology regarding the nature of life and biological functions. Synthetic biology aims to reduce living organisms to their simplest forms by identifying the minimal components of a cell and also to create novel life forms through genetic reprogramming, biobrick assembly, or novel proteins. However, the technical success of these endeavors does not guarantee their conceptual success in defining life. There is a lack of (...) consensus among researchers on how to define and classify the entities produced in the lab, whether they should be considered living or categorized differently. The criteria for minimal cells and minimal life are subject to arbitrary choices and varying interpretations. The concept of function, crucial to synthetic biology, is also difficult to define. The article highlights the need to consider the minimal set of functions that characterize life before determining the smallest genomes that code for those functions. The arbitrary nature of defining both life and function complicates the understanding and classification of these entities. The article suggests that the traditional dichotomy between the living and the non-living may no longer be valid and that the concept of life itself may not require precise scientific definition. As synthetic biology advances, the article emphasizes the importance of redefining or constructing new categories to encompass the expanding possibilities and creations in the field. The ability to create new life forms raises questions about recognition, identification, and ethical implications, requiring a conceptual and philosophical engagement beyond the technical achievements of synthetic biology. -/- [FRENCH] L'article aborde le potentiel de la biologie synthétique pour répondre à des questions fondamentales de la philosophie de la biologie concernant la nature de la vie et des fonctions biologiques. La biologie synthétique vise à réduire les organismes vivants à leurs formes les plus simples en identifiant les composants minimaux d'une cellule et à créer de nouvelles formes de vie grâce à la reprogrammation génétique, à l'assemblage de biobriques ou à des protéines nouvelles. Cependant, le succès technique de ces approches ne garantit pas leur réussite conceptuelle dans la définition de la vie. Il n'y a pas de consensus parmi les chercheurs sur la façon de définir et de classer les entités produites en laboratoire, qu'elles doivent être considérées comme vivantes ou catégorisées différemment. Les critères des cellules minimales et de la vie minimale sont soumis à des choix arbitraires et à des interprétations variables. La notion de fonction, essentielle en biologie synthétique, est également difficile à définir. L'article met en évidence la nécessité de prendre en compte l'ensemble minimal de fonctions qui caractérisent la vie avant de déterminer les plus petits génomes qui codent ces fonctions. La nature arbitraire de la définition de la vie et de la fonction complique la compréhension et la classification de ces entités. L'article suggère que la dichotomie traditionnelle entre le vivant et le non-vivant pourrait ne plus être valable et que le concept même de vie ne nécessite pas une définition scientifique précise. À mesure que la biologie synthétique progresse, l'article souligne l'importance de redéfinir ou de construire de nouvelles catégories pour englober les possibilités et créations croissantes dans le domaine. La capacité à créer de nouvelles formes de vie soulève des questions de reconnaissance, d'identification et d'implications éthiques, nécessitant une réflexion conceptuelle et philosophique au-delà des avancées techniques de la biologie synthétique. (shrink)

The destruction of animality that takes place in Heidegger’s Fundamental Concepts of Metaphysics goes as far as to destroy the very idea of an animal life as distinct from plant life. “Life”, as Heidegger says in Being and Time, is “a specific mode of being”, that is to say, as the 1929-30 lecture course will show, that it is “the mode of being of animals and plants”. Conceived as a mere organism that does “nothing more than to live”, the (...) animal find itself deprived of world, living in a vegetative state, in a kind of stupor (Benommenheit). The method of the ontology of life – announced in Being and Time as a “privative interpretation” – will reveal itself as a biological reduction: the strategy is to find functional equivalences for all that, in animals, resemble in any way what we find in humans. The life of animals is not a life, but biological processes. The traditional faculties associated with animal life – movement, perception and irrational desire (i.e. impulsion) – will be held as properly human, letting the animals a form of life deprived of signification, of possibility, of world. (shrink)

Multicellular organisms contain numerous symbiotic microorganisms, collectively called microbiomes. Recently, microbiomic research has shown that these microorganisms are responsible for the proper functioning of many of the systems (digestive, immune, nervous, etc.) of multicellular organisms. This has inclined some scholars to argue that it is about time to reconceptualise the organism and to develop a concept that would place the greatest emphasis on the vital role of microorganisms in the life of plants and animals. We believe that, unfortunately, there (...) is a problem with this suggestion, since there is no such thing as a universal concept of the organism which could constitute a basis for all biological sciences. Rather, the opposite is true: numerous alternative definitions exist. Therefore, comprehending how microbiomics is changing our understanding of organisms may be a very complex matter. In this paper we will demonstrate that this pluralism proves that claims about a change in our understanding of organisms can be treated as both true and untrue. Mainly, we assert that the existing concepts differ substantially, and that only some of them have to be reconsidered in order to incorporate the discoveries of microbiomics, while others are already flexible enough to do so. Taking into account the plurality of conceptualisations within different branches of modern biology, we will conduct our discussion using the developmental and the cooperation–conflict concepts of the organism. Then we will explain our results by referring to the recent philosophical debate on the nature of the concept of the organism within biology. (shrink)

Most philosophers writing about personal identity in recent years claim that what it takes for us to persist through time is a matter of psychology. In this groundbreaking new book, Eric Olson argues that such approaches face daunting problems, and he defends in their place a radically non-psychological account of personal identity. He defines human beings as biological organisms, and claims that no psychological relation is either sufficient or necessary for an organism to persist. Olson rejects several famous thought-experiments (...) dealing with personal identity. He argues, instead, that one could survive the destruction of all of one's psychological contents and capabilities as long as the human organism remains alive--as long as its vital functions, such as breathing, circulation, and metabolism, continue. (shrink)

Nowadays “philosophy of biology” is taken to be the special study of a set of issues concerning selection, adaptation, and the characterization of a species. Though the reduction of biology to chemistry and physics remained a topic in the general philosophy of science syllabus through the 1970s, the concept of life subsequently lost even this marginal foothold in the curriculum. Hans.

The question dealt with in the article is the following: Is reality a Unity, a Plurality or a Whole. We do not expect to get definit results, we are only interested in pointing out a new ideal of scientific research.Under the predominance of physical thinking science was inclined upon nature as a Unity. The philosophy corresponding with this conception is Monism, to which belong all philosophical systems founded on the mecanistic idea from the primitive Monism ofHaeckel to the most sophisticated (...) Positivism. All these conceptions had to be rejected, because they were not able to eliminate the contingences of reality.Every conception of nature consistent with experience must recognize these contingences of reality. On this bases one can take reality either as a plurality or as a whole. According to the doctrine of pluralism contingence of the laws of nature is an original phenomenon which has to be accepted as such. This would mean the definit solution of the philosophical problems, if this would prove to be the only philosophy founded on the principle of contingence.But there is still such an another conception that is Holism. Here contrary to Pluralism, the domains of reality are not absolutely autonomous but form an organic whole comparable to that of the organs of a living body. In a living body each organ besides having its autonomous life, fulfils a special function in the whole of the organism. In the same science the different domains of reality are only the functionally differenciated organs of the whole nature. Consequently nature is not a passive and mecanistic unity, but an active and creative whole. Each cell is a member of a tissue, each tissue a member of an organ and the organ a member of the whole organism; each of them however has its personal and relatively “autonomous” existence. In the same way physical reality forms a member of organical reality, organical reality a member of psiquical reality, psiquical reality a member of social reality and social reality a member of historical reality. These domains also keep their autonomy and contingence. So the members of an organism can only be explained starting from the superior organ, i.e. in order to understand the functions of the cell one must first know those of the tissue etc. Though different domains of reality can only be understood by deriving in each case the less complicated reality from the more complicated, for instance the physical reality must be derived from organical reality, organical reality from psiquical reality etc. ... The details of the argumentation are given in the treatise itself. In summary the result is a biological conception of nature as a whole instead of physical conception prevalent up to now.La question formulée est la suivante: il s' agit de prouver si la réalité est une unité, une pluralité ou une totalité. Nous ne nous proposons pas trouver des résultats définitifs; nous nous bornerons plutôt à renseigner un nouveau ideal de la connaissance des choses, pour ainsi servir les buts de la science avenir.Sous la prévalence de l'orientation physicale la science tendait à comprendre la nature comme une seule unité. La philosophie qui corresponde à cette conception est le Monisme, qui embrasse tous les systèmes philosophiques fondés sur l'idée mécanistique du monisme primitif deHaeckel jusqu'au positivisme sublime. Toutes ces conceptions ont échoué, car ils n'étaient pas capables d'éliminer les contingences de la réalité.Toute la conception de la nature soutenable du point de vue empirique, doit reconnaître ces contingences de la réalité. Sur cette base on peut comprendre la réalité ou comme une pluralité ou comme une totalité. Selon la doctrine de pluralisme “la contingence des lois de la nature” est un phénomène, qu'on doit accepter comme tel. Il donnerait la solution définitive des problèmes philosophiques, à moins qu'il n'existât une autre philosophie de la réalité fondée, elle aussi, sur la contingence de la nature.Cette nouvelle philosophie est le Holisme.À la difference du pluralisme les rayons de la réalité ne constituent pas des domaines absolument autonomes, mais ils forment une totalité organique comparable à celle des membres d'un corps vivant. Dans un corps vivant chaque organe, entre la vie autonome, remplit une fonction spécifique dans l'ensemble total de l'organisme. De la même façon les différents rayons de la réalité ne sont que des organes fonctionnellement différenciés de la nature totale. Par conséquent, la nature n'est pas une unité passive et mécanistique, mais une totalité active et créatrice. Chaque cellule est un membre du tissu, chaque tissu un membre de l'organe et chaque organe un membre de l'organisme total; cependant chacun d'eux a sa propre existence. D'une manière analogue la réalité physique forme un membre de la réalité organique, la réalité organique un membre de la réalité psychique, la réalité psychique un membre de la réalité sociale, et enfin la réalité sociale un membre de la réalité historique. Toute fois ces rayons conservent leur autonomie et leur contingence. Or, les membres d'un organisme ne peuvent être expliqués qu'en partant de l'organe supérieur, c'est à dire pour comprendre les fonctions de la cellule il faut d'abord connaître celle du tissu et ainsi de suite etc. Les différents rayons de la réalité ne peuvent donc être compris qu'en dérivant, en chaque cas, la réalité moins compliquée, ce qui signifie par exemple qu'on doit dériver la réalité physique de la réalité organique, la réalité organique de la réalité psychique etc. Les détails de l'argumentation sont donnés dans le traité lui-même.En résumé il résulte une conception biologique de la réalité totale au lieu de la conception physique qui prévalait jusqu'ici. (shrink)

Author continues the publication which appeared in the Acta Biotheoretica I, p. 113–132, regarding his results obtained in course of research work on superior plants:Picea excelsa trees, and furthermore on unicellular living beings, namely yeast cells . Author made a pure culture with the unicellular culture method, and by occasional inoculation produced successors therefrom. He established the progress in development by measuring, according to weight, the CO2 which arose in course of life. The ontogenetic course of development of the original (...) culture as well as that of the successors took the form ofS but theseS curves were not equally precipitous . When he drew theS-formed development curves in the measure of their time of inoculation in a rectangular co-ordinate system, he received a wave-surface . When he intersected the wave-surface with the abscissa and the plane parallel with the vertical axis, wave-like lines were the result, which resembled vibratory motion evolving around an axis producing a regular picture . Research has ascertained that the axis follows the laws of aperiodic vibratory motion, the undulating curve corresponds with the phenomenon of periodic vibratory motion, both of which are derived from the common differential equationd 2 s/dt 2 + 2r ds/dt +w 2 s=o. Any point of thes h axis following the aperiodic vibratory motion is given by the following equation: sh=a1e−r1t⋅e+tr21−w21√−e−tr21−w21√2⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅while the wave-curve showing thes h periodic movement is given by the following equation: sp=a2e−r2tcos⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅The completey movement is made up of the total of the two vibratory movementsy=s h +s p . The research for the time being refers merely to the aperiodic axis. Calculations show that with thes h equation, the aperiodic axes belonging to all the sections can be followed exactly, as the time function oft, and moreover, the change according to time in the size of the w1, r1, a1 coefficients also shows definite regularity .Author deals separately with the calculation of the axis maximal time =t max and the maximal value = s h max of the wave-curve, and establishes that the development speed of every cell and every organism built up from cells has a maximal point of time and a maximal value. Thet maximum point of time: tmax=Ir12−w12−−−−−−−√logelogr+r12−w12−−−−−−−√r−r12−w12−−−−−−−√−−−−−−−−−−−√⋅⋅⋅⋅If we put thet max value in the place of the original equation of the axis we get the numeric value of thet max .Author finally establishes that the recognition of the fact that a harmonic vibratory motion plays a part in the evolution of living beings and that the axis of this complicated vibration follows the equation of aperiodic vibratory motion is a fundamental result in the theoretic study of the phenomena of life, which, besides, has also a great practical importance in the sphere of the study of improvement, inheritance and the biology of the species.L'auteur continue la publication des résultats de ses recherches faites sur des êtres vivants unicellulaires, notamment desSaccharomyces. Cette publication fut communiquée dans les Acta Biotheoretica I, p. 113–132. Par la méthode de la culture unicellulaire, l'auteur a créé une culture pure et, de celli-ci, au moyen d'inoculations périodiques, il a créé des descendants. Il a mesuré la marche du développement en pesant le CO2 produit au cours de la vie. La courbe d'évolution ontogénétique, tant de la culture-mère que des descendants, a présenté une ligne enS, mais chacun de cesS ne montait pas de la même façon . En représentant ces courbes d'évolution enS en fonction du temps et à l'échelle des périodes d'inoculation sur des coordonnées rectilignes, il obtenait une surface d'ondes . En coupant cette surface par un plan parallèle à l'abscisse et à l'axe vertical, il obtenait des lignes ondoyantes qui ressemblaient à un mouvement oscillatoire se formant autour d'un axe à l'image régulière . Les examens ont révélé que l'axe suit les lois du mouvement vibratoire harmonique apériodique et que la courbe ondoyante répond au phénomène du mouvement vibratoire harmonique périodique. L'un et l'autre provenant de l'équation différentielle communed 2 s/dt 2 + 2r ds/dt +w 2 s=o. N'importe quel point de l'axes h qui suit un mouvement vibratoire harmonique apériodique est déterminé par l'équation suivante: sh=a1e−r1t⋅e+tr21−w21√−e−tr21−w21√2⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅cependant que la courbe ondoyante s p qui montre un mouvement vibratoire harmonique périodique est exprimée par l'équation suivante sp=a2e−r2tcos⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅⋅Le mouvement complety se compose de la somme des deux mouvements oscillatoires,y =s h +s p .Pour le moment, les examens n'ont trait qu'à l'axe apériodique. Les calculs prouvent que par l'équation sh les axes apériodiques appartenant à toutes les coupes peuvent être suivis avec exactitude comme fonctions du tempst, et que même le changement de la valeur des coefficientsw 1 ,r 1 ,a 1, présente aussi une régularité nette .L'auteur examine ensuite le calcul du temps maximum=t max et, en outre, la valeur maximum =s hmax de l'axe de la courbe vibratoire et il énonce que toute cellule et tout organisme composé de cellules ont dans le cours de leur développement un temps maximum et une valeur maximum. Le tempst maximum sera: tmax=Ir12−w12−−−−−−−√logelogr+r12−w12−−−−−−−√r−r12−w12−−−−−−−√−−−−−−−−−−−√⋅⋅⋅⋅En substituant la valeur dut max dans l'équation originale de l'axe , on obtient la valeur numérique dut max .Finalement, après avoir déterminé le fait que dans le développement des êtres vivants, on est en présence d'un mouvement vibratoire harmonique périodique et que l'axe de cette oscillation complexe suit l'équation du mouvement vibratoire harmonique apériodique, l'auteur constate que cette détermination constitue un résultat fondamental pour l'étude théoritique des phénomènes vitaux et ce résultat possède en même temps une grande importance pratique pour l'étude de l'amélioration, du sélectionnement, de l'hérédité et de la biologie de la race. (shrink)

Vivant jusqu’à la mortCompte-rendu de A. Cavazzini, A. Gualandi (édité par), Logiche del vivente.Evoluzione, sviluppo, cognizione nell’epistemologia francese contemporanea,“Discipline filosofiche” XIX, I, Quodlibet, Macerata 2009Le nouveau recueil d’essais consacrés à une épistémologie pour la discipline philosophique, sous la direction de A. Cavazzini et A. Gualandi, se structure autourd’une idée forte de Bergson, celle d’ « attention à la vie ». Cette idée est utilisée comme instrument herméneutique pour désigner un aspect de la culture philosophique française du XIXè siècle et (...) de l’époque contemporaine en particulier, qui voit dans l’épistémologie de la biologie un lieu de rencontre entre des perspectives hétérogènes, ainsi qu’un moyen de vérifier l’état actuel des sciences de la vie et d’étudier la possibilité d’une philosophie de la biologie prenant en compte et mettant profit les impulsions des avancées scientifiques. Le recueil cherche à rendre compte de la nouveauté du paradigme biologique contemporain, qui vise un degré extrême de synthèse entre les savoirs et les disciplines liées au « champ biologique ». Logiche del vivente parvient donc à rendre compte de la nouvelle approche synthétique du biologique, ouvrant à ce syncrétisme de positions qui contribue à sa définition contemporaine : évolution, développement et cognition, réunis dans une même perspective, sont les instruments d’une réécriture du vocabulaire et des catégories de la réflexion biologique, indépendamment de l’alternative paralysante entre le « mauvais » vitalisme et le mécanisme.Vivant jusqu’à la mortReview of A. Cavazzini, A. Gualandi (edited by), Logiche del vivente.Evoluzione, sviluppo, cognizione nell’epistemologia francese contemporanea,“Discipline filosofiche” XIX, I, Quodlibet, Macerata 2009Edited by A. Cavazzini and A. Gualandi, this new collection of essays devoted to an epistemology for the philosophical discipline is structured around one of Bergson’s powerful ideas, that of “attention to life.” This idea is used as a hermeneutic structure in order to outline an aspect of the French philosophical culture of the 19th century and of the contemporary epoch in particular. What one sees is that the epistemology of biology is a place of encounter between heterogeneous perspective. As well, it is a means to verify the current state of the life sciences and to study the possibility of a philosophy of biology which would take account of the novelty of the contemporary biological paradigm, a paradigm that aims at an extreme degree of synthesis between the sciences and the disciplines connected to the “biological field.” Logiche del vivente therefore manages to take account of the new synthetic approach of biology, opening itself up to a syncretism of positions which contributes to its contemporary definition: evolution, development and cognition, united in one perspective, are instruments of are-writing of the vocabulary and the categories of biological reflection, independently of the paralyzing alternative be “bad” vitalism and mechanism. (shrink)

Vivant jusqu’à la mortCompte-rendu de A. Cavazzini, A. Gualandi (édité par), Logiche del vivente.Evoluzione, sviluppo, cognizione nell’epistemologia francese contemporanea,“Discipline filosofiche” XIX, I, Quodlibet, Macerata 2009Le nouveau recueil d’essais consacrés à une épistémologie pour la discipline philosophique, sous la direction de A. Cavazzini et A. Gualandi, se structure autourd’une idée forte de Bergson, celle d’ « attention à la vie ». Cette idée est utilisée comme instrument herméneutique pour désigner un aspect de la culture philosophique française du XIXè siècle et (...) de l’époque contemporaine en particulier, qui voit dans l’épistémologie de la biologie un lieu de rencontre entre des perspectives hétérogènes, ainsi qu’un moyen de vérifier l’état actuel des sciences de la vie et d’étudier la possibilité d’une philosophie de la biologie prenant en compte et mettant profit les impulsions des avancées scientifiques. Le recueil cherche à rendre compte de la nouveauté du paradigme biologique contemporain, qui vise un degré extrême de synthèse entre les savoirs et les disciplines liées au « champ biologique ». Logiche del vivente parvient donc à rendre compte de la nouvelle approche synthétique du biologique, ouvrant à ce syncrétisme de positions qui contribue à sa définition contemporaine : évolution, développement et cognition, réunis dans une même perspective, sont les instruments d’une réécriture du vocabulaire et des catégories de la réflexion biologique, indépendamment de l’alternative paralysante entre le « mauvais » vitalisme et le mécanisme.Vivant jusqu’à la mortReview of A. Cavazzini, A. Gualandi (edited by), Logiche del vivente.Evoluzione, sviluppo, cognizione nell’epistemologia francese contemporanea,“Discipline filosofiche” XIX, I, Quodlibet, Macerata 2009Edited by A. Cavazzini and A. Gualandi, this new collection of essays devoted to an epistemology for the philosophical discipline is structured around one of Bergson’s powerful ideas, that of “attention to life.” This idea is used as a hermeneutic structure in order to outline an aspect of the French philosophical culture of the 19th century and of the contemporary epoch in particular. What one sees is that the epistemology of biology is a place of encounter between heterogeneous perspective. As well, it is a means to verify the current state of the life sciences and to study the possibility of a philosophy of biology which would take account of the novelty of the contemporary biological paradigm, a paradigm that aims at an extreme degree of synthesis between the sciences and the disciplines connected to the “biological field.” Logiche del vivente therefore manages to take account of the new synthetic approach of biology, opening itself up to a syncretism of positions which contributes to its contemporary definition: evolution, development and cognition, united in one perspective, are instruments of are-writing of the vocabulary and the categories of biological reflection, independently of the paralyzing alternative be “bad” vitalism and mechanism. (shrink)

Given the tremendous burst of activity in the philosophy of science during the last quarter century, the number of books by trained philosophers dealing with the logic of biology is surprisingly small. Simon’s book resembles Morton Beckner’s The Biological Way of Thought in its comprehensive ambitions: "trying to discover what, if anything, is distinctive about biological science, its concepts, and its mode of explaining." The most obvious difference of the two books is Simon’s long central chapter on "Theories, Models, and (...) the Concept of the Gene," which deals with the history of genetics from Mendel’s predecessors to the successors of Watson and Crick. Beckner paid little explicit attention to the history of biology. Another difference lies in Beckner’s dogged assessment of all problems in the logic of biology from the perspective of what he called the Humean Pattern of Explanation—a detailed and difficult variant of the approach of Hempel, Oppenheim, and Nagel. Simon’s philosophical position is more flexible than Beckner’s. He provides an acceptable review of the literature of the last decade and a half; some of his conclusions are most interesting—even when incompletely supported by his arguments; and the utility of his book is insured by the fact that it is necessary to go back over twelve years to find another with which it can be compared. The first chapter contains a very effective critique of J. J. C. Smart’s thesis that biology is no more an autonomous science than is electrical engineering, but is merely applied physics and chemistry. Smart had argued from the grounds that all biological generalizations implicitly refer to terrestrial evolution and are not truly universal, and Simon demonstrates the general lack of success of all efforts to demonstrate a difference in kind between so-called laws of nature and empirical generalizations of the sort found in biology. The second chapter continues in this same vein, drawing an interesting contrast between phylogenetic explanation in biology and the explanation of individual events in human history, and claiming that ‘explanatory’ status may be granted to accounts which do not meet the requirements of the deductive-nomological model, as in the case of Darwin’s theories of the geographical distribution of plants and animals and the persistence of rudimentary organs. The author’s negative reaction to much of the recent philosophical literature concerning the role of functional analysis in biology seems particularly well placed. Following Hempel, most philosophers writing in the past ten years have regarded the occurrence of the item whose function is in question as the event to be explained. Simon correctly points out that in the biological literature, statements indicating the presence of this item are part of the explanans, usually one component in an explanation of the normal functioning of the organism. He also insists that functional or teleological statements cannot effectively be replaced by nonteleological ones. A functional account is one that relates an entity to the role it plays in an organized system. In the first of several serene non-sequiturs which mar the latter half of this book, Simon insists that the above account shows that the notion of function is essentially an "extrinsic" one and that teleological principles generally cannot be used to account for experience. No better argument than an appeal to Kant’s authority backs up this conclusion. The third chapter deals with the recent history of genetics; its summary makes the claim that "at no time during this history was it correct to say that one model was replaced by another one; rather, the development appears to have been one involving successive correction and refining of earlier conceptions. There has been no revolution: geneticists have always succeeded in either repelling or accommodating critical attacks on the model." The evidence presented earlier in the chapter confers some plausibility on this conclusion, but no more: Simon takes no notice of the controversy surrounding Kuhn and the notion of scientific revolutions, and provides no criteria by which to distinguish "revolutions" from "accommodations." The precise nature of the methodological continuity to be found in the history of genetics is crucial for the view that "biology, or at least genetics, must be regarded as incapable of yielding a complete explanation of the phenomena that come within its purview; if the ultimate principles appealed to are not those of chemistry and physics and hence essentially nonbiological, the explanation cannot be regarded as complete." The text does not clearly indicate the extent to which the author agrees with the statement just quoted; perhaps he only attributes it to "many biologists" impressed by the successes of molecular genetics. It is clear the Simon regards something he calls the "Cartesian attitude" as pervasive in biology. "Biologists are committed to attempting to explain the phenomena of life in terms of the nonliving... The property of being alive or being associated with a living system is simply not treated as a logical primitive within biological science." But this seems to take us back full circle—to the position of Smart, that biology is no more than applied physics and chemistry. Simon disagrees with Smart. How does he stand vis-a-vis this last statement of the Cartesian spirit he finds so pervasive in biology? I think he disagrees with it, but it is very hard to tell. Perhaps the answer is that the resolution of the issue of the autonomy of biology is a pragmatic matter, relative to a complex set of needs and commitments: the sorts of things that determine life styles, political attitudes, and religious points of view, as well as the growth of scientific understanding. The question of the precise configuration of Simon’s pragmatism remains very vague indeed—a consequence of his over use of the style of impersonal attribution rather than direct assertion. Simon says generally sane and familiar things about Biology and the Idea of Progress and about Biology and Ethics. The really startling assertion of the penultimate chapter, that "consciousness" is neither a biological nor a behavioral predicate, and that its foundations are essentially moral and legal, is unfortunately supported by no argument whatsoever. Instead, the reader is urged to examine two of the author’s previous articles.—E. M. (shrink)

Les textes dans lesquels Descartes tente de donner une analyse mécaniste du vivant forment l’une des contributions majeures à l’histoire des sciences naturelles. Mais, annexée à la physique cartésienne, elle a été jugée réductrice et insuffisante, voire dangereuse, par de nombreux courants historiographiques ou philosophiques qui préfèrent au système cartésien l’empirisme des Lumières. Mais c’est donner une image bien pauvre de la science cartésienne du vivant que de la considérer comme un discours visant à construire une catégorie éthique (...) et ontologique de l’animalité. En analysant les éléments qui font de la pensée cartésienne du vivant une science, cet article tente de montrer que c’est sur le terrain du seul savoir que le statut du corps vivant peut être compris pour ce qu’il est : une hypothèse ouverte. Les interprétations morales de la doctrine de l’animal-machine, qui feignent de ne pas voir ce fondement épistémologique, ne peuvent se prévaloir d’aucun fondement historique ou philosophique pour donner sens à leur lecture biaisée. (shrink)

Although developmental biology is an institutionalized discipline, no unambiguous account of what development is and when it stops has so far been provided. In this article, I focus on two sets of developmental molecular mechanisms, namely those underlying the heterochronic pathway in C. elegans and those involving Hox genes in vertebrates, to suggest a conceptual account of animal development. I point out that, in these animals, the early stages of life exhibit salient mechanistic features, in particular in the way mechanisms (...) of genetic regulation occur in the organism. Indeed, these stages are characterized by sequential and irreversible changes in gene expression taking place throughout the organism. A general definition of animal development based on these distinctive features implies that, at least for some animal species, development does not go on throughout the life of the animal, contrary to what has recently been claimed by some biologists and philosophers. Instead, in such species, development encompasses various events occurring sequentially at the beginning of life. (shrink)

L'époque qu'il nous est donné de vivre, à nous, les hommes et les femmes, mais aussi aux animaux et aux paysages, est exaltante autant qu'inquiétante. Après celles du langage et de l'écriture, une troisième révolution est en cours. Depuis les domaines du digital ou de la biologie moléculaire, on nous annonce que tous les mécanismes biologiques pourraient enfin être révélés ; l'immortalité serait à portée de main. Bientôt, on se débarrassera de nos corps encombrants et malades, simples agrégats d'information, au (...) profit d'une vie meilleure, post- organique, où tout serait calculable, prévisible, maîtrisable. Le temps serait venu, ni plus ni moins, de se passer du monde réel et du vivant lui-même, désormais réductible à ses composants, à une mécanique. Mais ce réductionnisme forcené n'est-il pas dangereux pour la vie elle-même, pour nos cultures, pour nos rythmes? Contre cette frénésie du vivant augmenté, et cette perte de sens qui nous menace, Miguel Benasayag invite à déployer une interface entre le digital et la vie réelle. Le modèle organique proposé ici, le " Mamotreto ", se veut ainsi une contribution dans la production nécessaire d'un nouveau paradigme – penser une technique qui prenne en compte la singularité du vivant, son unité, et cohabite pleinement avec lui. (shrink)

Palaeontology developed as a field dependent upon comparison. Not only did reconstructing the fragmentary records of fossil organisms and placing them within taxonomic systems and evolutionary lineages require detailed anatomical comparisons with living and fossil animals, but the field also required thinking in terms of behavioural, biological and ecological analogies with modern organisms to understand how prehistoric animals lived and behaved. Yet palaeontological material often worked against making easy linkages, bringing a sense of mystery and doubt. This paper will look (...) at an animal whose study exemplified these problems: the Chalicothere. Increasingly recognized as a specific type from finds across North America and Eurasia from the early nineteenth century onwards, these prehistoric mammals showed short back legs terminating in pawed feet, long front limbs ending in sharp claws, a long flexible neck, and herbivorous grinding teeth. The Chalicothere became a significant organism within palaeontological studies, as the unexpected mix of characters made it a textbook example against the Cuvierian notion of “correlation of parts,” while explaining how the animal moved, fed and behaved became puzzling. However, rather than prevent comparisons, these actually led to comparative analogies becoming flexible and varied, with different forms of comparison being made with varying methods and degrees of confidence, and with the anatomy, movement and behaviour of giraffes, bears, horses, anteaters, primates and other organisms all serving at various points as potential models for different aspects of the animal. This paper will examine some of the attempts to reconstruct and define the Chalicotheres across a long timescale, using this to show how multiple comparisons and analogies could be deployed in a reconstructive and evolutionary science like palaeontology, and illustrate some of the limits and tensions in comparative methods, as they were used to reconstruct organisms which were thought to be incomparable to any modern animal. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Journal of the History of Philosophy 40.1 (2002) 122-123 [Access article in PDF] Book Review Spirits and Clocks: Machine & Organism in Descartes Dennis Des Chene. Spirits and Clocks: Machine & Organism in Descartes. Ithaca, NY and London: Cornell University Press, 2001. Pp. xiii + 181. Cloth, $39.95. Confronted with the thousandth "entirely new" interpretation of the Cartesian mind-body union, one sometimes wonders whether anything new can (...) in fact be said about the great Descartes. Once again, after his invaluable and prize-winning Physiologia (Cornell University Press, 1996), Des Chene proves that a serious historian, with a keen awareness of historical context, actually can. Unlike the usual accounts of Descartes's animal-machine, Des Chene does not concentrate on the all too familiar set of questions whether or not machines can think, sense, etc. Instead, Des Chene interprets the machine-metaphor the way Descartes meant it to be, viz. as a model for explaining animal and human physiology instead of (cognitive) psychology. Des Chene's central claim is that the Traité de l'Homme and Descartes's later (unpublished) physiological tracts are an attempt to replace scholastic commentaries on Aristotle's De Anima, itself discussed in this book's companion volume Life's Forms (Cornell University Press, 2000). Spirits and Clocks investigates how Descartes's general mechanistic program (outlined in Physiologia) is applied to the field of animal and human life. This project in itself had a far more lasting influence than Descartes's specific and often bizarre physiological explanations. Therefore, Des Chene rightly concentrates on the philosophical aspects of Descartes's general project of "mechanizing" physiology. His short but illuminating book studies a wide range of ontological, epistemological, and even aesthetic aspects of the machine metaphor and, although this is not the express goal [End Page 122] of the book, it also sheds new light on the epistemology and metaphysics of the Meditations. In this sense Spirits and Clocks is not only a significant contribution to the history of biology but first and foremost a must for historians of philosophy.Des Chene explains that the use of a machine model in physiology was neither new nor entirely unacceptable to the Aristotelians. What is new is Descartes's use of it. His mechanistic understanding of the body as a machine is incompatible with accepting the soul as the source of life and the principle of all our physiological and psychological capacities, while Aristotelians had no problem in accepting both the soul and certain machine models of the body. (Aristotle himself uses the lever to explain animal motion.) Des Chene sketches Descartes's attempt to explain all physiological processes by means of the physical properties of material parts that obey the general laws of motion, excluding all talk of ends. In this context, the use of illustrations is of considerable importance: though they cannot per se convey a denial of a "soul-model" of physiology, they strongly suggest that the (mechanistically understood) machine is all there is to say about the functions of human and animal bodies. Des Chene offers an interesting, albeit sometimes somewhat speculative and ahistoric, discussion of the aesthetic aspects of the machine model.As Des Chene showed in his Physiologia, the rejection of teleology is one of the main goals of Descartes's physics. However, although Descartes may be successful in rejecting the view that stones fall down from some kind of desire to reach their final destiny, he is less successful in denying that the eye is meant for seeing (and hence for our self-preservation). Des Chene gives a truly fascinating account of the limits of Descartes's denial of teleology in physiology. This includes questions about the physical unity of the human body: how can I explain why I have this body and how can I even identify this body as a unit without invoking ends? Similarly, Descartes takes the healthy, "normally" functioning body as the norm of his investigations. But, again, can he do so without acknowledging some form of teleology? Descartes's answer in most of these cases is that the final goals... (shrink)

The aim of this paper is to elucidate the vital meaning and strategic role that nutrition holds in Claude Bernard’s “biological philosophy”, in the sense Auguste Comte gave to this expression, _i.e._ the theoretical part of biology. I propose that Bernard’s nutritive perspective on life should be thought of as an “interfield” object, following Holmes’ category. Not only does nutrition bridge disciplines like physiology and organic chemistry, as well as levels of inquiry ranging from special physiology to the organism’s (...) total level, including the cell and protoplasm, but it also forms the genetic and structural foundation for Bernard’s two fundamental axioms in general physiology: the necessary complementarity of destruction and creation (1) and the uniformity of this physiological law across all life forms, be it plants or animals (2). Because Bernard’s nutritive theory is a major pivot for the re-ordering of life and its characterization, I argue that it must be located and understood in the scientific and metaphysical context of his time, of which he claims to be the heir and challenger—what I propose to characterize as the “epistemic space” of nutrition, on the background of which Bernard builds his own “logic”. I then set out this _logic of nutrition_, focusing on three interrelated bernardian theses: the establishment of the theory of indirect nutrition as the basis for the notion of “milieu intérieur”; the enduring conception of nutrition as a continuous generation; the emphasis on nutrition as a way of reshaping the form/matter relationship. (shrink)

Kant was well versed in many of the debates taking place in the life sciences during his day. One of the more central areas of contention concerned the proper means for discriminating between material bodies composed of organised parts (like clocks or automatons) and living material bodies composed of organised parts (like plants and animals). For many theorists, it seemed clear that the physically organised structure of a body was distinct from any vital forces responsible for the life processes or (...) metabolism at work within it. This was the approach taken by the chemist Georg Stahl (1659-1734), for example, who resisted attempts to provide a mechanical account of metabolism, arguing instead that only something like a physis or anima could explain a living body’s capacity for the movement of otherwise inert material parts. This was a position which Kant appears to have appreciated when, in discussing the issue in 1766, he exclaimed “I am convinced that Stahl, who is disposed to explain animal processes in organic terms, was frequently closer to the truth than [the mechanists] Hofmann or Boerhaave, to name but a few” (2:331). And indeed, by 1790 Kant would reach conclusions similar to Stahl’s regarding the manner by which we must reflectively judge animal processes to be operating, given that for Stahl the biological body was best taken to be a complex, self-organising system of material parts and a purposive force or physis responsible for their ongoing interrelation. (shrink)

As its title indicates, this article shows animation to be the fundamental, essential, and properly descriptive concept to understandings of animate life. A critical and constructive path is taken toward an illumination of these threefold dimensions of animation. The article is critical in its attention to a central linguistic formulation in cognitive neuroscience, namely, enaction ; it is constructive in setting forth an analysis of affectivity as exemplar of a staple of animate life, elucidating its biological and existential foundations in (...) animation. (shrink)

Well prior to the invention of the term ‘biology’ in the early 1800s by Lamarck and Treviranus, and also prior to the appearance of terms such as ‘organism’ under the pen of Leibniz in the early 1700s, the question of ‘Life’, that is, the status of living organisms within the broader physico-mechanical universe, agitated different corners of the European intellectual scene. From modern Epicureanism to medical Newtonianism, from Stahlian animism to the discourse on the ‘animal economy’ in vitalist medicine, (...) models of living being were constructed in opposition to ‘merely anatomical’, structural, mechanical models. It is therefore curious to turn to the ‘passion play’ of the Scientific Revolution – whether in its early, canonical definitions or its more recent, hybridized, reconstructed and expanded versions: from Koyré to Biagioli, from Merton to Shapin – and find there a conspicuous absence of worry over what status to grant living beings in a newly physicalized universe. Neither Harvey, nor Boyle, nor Locke (to name some likely candidates, the latter having studied with Willis and collaborated with Sydenham) ever ask what makes organisms unique, or conversely, what does not. In this paper I seek to establish how ‘Life’ became a source of contention in early modern thought, and how the Scientific Revolution missed the controversy. (shrink)

Consideration of the experimental activities carried out in one discipline, through the lens of another, can lead to novel insights. Here, we comment from a biological perspective upon experiments in quantum mechanics proposed by physicists that are likely to feasible in the near future. In these experiments, an entire living organism would be knowingly placed into a coherent quantum state for the first time, i.e. would be coerced into demonstrating quantum phenomena. The implications of the proposed experiment for a (...) biologist depend to an extent upon the outcomes. If successful, then the organism will have been temporarily in a state where it has an unmeasurable metabolism—not because a metabolic rate is undetectable, but because any attempt to measure it would automatically bring the organism out of the state. We argue that this would in essence represent a new category of cryptobiosis. Further, the organism would not necessarily retain all of the characteristics commonly attributed to living systems, unlike the currently known categories of cryptobiosis. If organisms can survive having previously been in a coherent state, then we must accept that living systems do not necessarily need to remain in a decoherent state at all times. This would be something new to biologists, even if it might seem trivial to physicists. It would have implications concerning the physical extremes organisms can tolerate, the search for extraterrestrial life, and our philosophical view of animation. (shrink)

The strong continuity thesis postulates that the properties of mind are an enriched version of the properties of life, and thus that life and mind differ in degree and not kind. A philosophical problem for this view is the ostensive discontinuity between humans and other animals in virtue of our use of symbols—particularly the presumption that the symbolic nature of human cognition bears no relation to the basic properties of life. In this paper, we make the case that a genuine (...) account of strong continuity requires the identification of some sort of correlate of symbol-use in basic life properties. Our strategy is three-fold: 1) we argue that examples of proto-symbolism in simple living systems would be consistent with an evolutionary trajectory that ultimately produced symbolic cognition in humans; 2) we introduce Gordon Tomkins’ biological notion of ‘symbol’ as something that represents to the organism a feature of its environment that is significant to its survival; and 3) we employ this biological understanding of symbol-use to suggest that the symbolic nature of human cognition can be understood as an enriched version of the basic symbolic properties of life, thus preserving life-mind continuity in this context. (shrink)

This is an article in Thomas J.J. McCloughlin (Ed.) The Nature of Science in Biology: A Resource for Educators. Graphikon Teo, Dublin. -/- Abstract: Philosophers usually tend to think of animals when they think about life, plants often only appear in their works as on the margins, in the background; they are rarely in the centre. However, plant life involves unique processes, including remarkable modes of interaction between plants and their environments. Needless to say, plants are vital parts of ecosystems. (...) Serious attention to plants provides novel and interesting perspectives on many topics in philosophy of biology, including individuality, organisation and disease. Plant biology should have a substantial part in philosophy education. To support this assertion, this paper briefly describes three topics related to plant-environment interaction and explains some of their philosophical implications. These topics are growth, plant hormones and plant-plant microbiota interactions, all of which present crucial aspects related to some prevalent topics in philosophy of biology such as individuality, systems thinking, and holobiont. (shrink)

Qu'est-ce qu'être Vivant? - S'agit-il de " se conserver " et de " croître "? de " sélectionner " des " mutations utiles "? Si Vivre implique la recherche et l'obtention de conditions favorables, n'y a-t-il de vie qu'à distance de la mort? Cependant et non sans suivre certains philosophes tels Nietzsche ou Bataille, la biologie cellulaire ne nous enseigne-t-elle pas que Vivre implique de ne précisément pas cesser de " correspondre " avec la Mort? Le " dialogue " (...) entre la tendance de toute cellule à se laisser disparaître & la suspension de cette tendance chez toute cellule qui reste en Vie ne réfute-t-il pas l'antique suprématie - de Platon au néodarwinisme - de la vie sur la mort? Les recherches contemporaines sur l'auto-effacement cellulaire - sur l'" apoptose " et la Mort cellulaire " programmée " - permettent d'aborder ces questions en détail. Elles supposent, avec l'équivocité des phénomènes Vitaux, une dialectique Vie-Mort dont l'issue n'est nullement acquise d'avance. Elles nous invitent à repenser le sens même de la conservation, incorporant y compris en ses forces les plus Vives quelque chose comme l'a-Mort. En définitive, les concepts issus de la recherche en biologie cellulaire et l'interprétation épistémologique et philosophique qu'il est possible d'en donner ne concernent pas exclusivement des processus et des entités cellulaires. Notre Vie déployée dans la connaissance, dans l'art ou dans l'amour de la Vie jusque dans la Mort, répond, elle aussi, d'une telle équivocité. (shrink)

Il n'y a pas de " théorie leibnizienne du vivant " mais on peut, à l'aide de certains outils conceptuels et sur la base de certaines orientations du discours leibnizien, porter un regard sur le vivant qui le saisisse comme la continuité ...

Biosemiotics argues that “sign” and “meaning” are two essential concepts for the explanation of life. Peircean biosemiotics, founded by Tomas Sebeok from Peirce’s semiotics and Jacob von Uexkül’s studies on animal communication, today makes up the mainstream of this discipline. Marcello Barbieri has developed an alternative account of meaning in biology based on the concept of code. Barbieri rejects Peircean biosemiotics on the grounds that this discipline opens the door to nonscientific approaches to biology through its use of the concept (...) of “interpretation.” In this article, it is noted that Barbieri does not adequately distinguish among Peirce’s semiotics, Peircean biosemiotics, and “interpretation-based” biosemiotics. Two key arguments of Barbieri are criticized: his limited view of science and his rejection of “interpretation-based” biosemiotics. My argument is based on tools taken from a different approach: Robert Rosen’s relational biology. Instead of “signs” and “meanings,” the study begins in this case from the “components” and “functions” of the organism. Rosen pursues a new definition of a law of nature, introduces the anticipatory nature of organisms, and defines the living being as a system closed to efficient cause. It is shown that Code Biosemiotics and Peircean biosemiotics can share a common field of study. Additionally, some proposals are suggested to carry out a reading of Rosen’s biology as a biosemiotic theory. (shrink)

Although their work in the philosophy of biology is not well known, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, and Ruyer all offer interesting and heterodox accounts of the life and environmental sciences and the organism in particular. In this chapter, we discuss their respective views, with a focus on their shared criticisms of Neo- Darwinism and the way this tradition grasped the structural coupling between organism and environment. We also outline some significant differences between each of them concerning how to conceive of (...) that holistic relation and the extent of “captivation” of the animal to its environment. Given that there are indications that the twenty-first century might be post-genomic/epigenetic, we argue that it is worth revisiting these neglected organicist trajectories that sought to navigate between mechanism and vitalism. (shrink)

From one of the most influential scientists of our time, a dazzling exploration of the hidden laws that govern the life cycle of everything from plants and animals to the cities we live in. The former head of the Sante Fe Institute, visionary physicist Geoffrey West is a pioneer in the field of complexity science, the science of emergent systems and networks. The term "complexity" can be misleading, however, because what makes West's discoveries so beautiful is that he has found (...) an underlying simplicity that unites the seemingly complex and diverse phenomena of living systems, including our bodies, our cities and our businesses. Fascinated by issues of aging and mortality, West applied the rigor of a physicist to the biological question of why we live as long as we do and no longer. The result was astonishing, and changed science, creating a new understanding of energy use and metabolism: West found that despite the riotous diversity in the sizes of mammals, they are all, to a large degree, scaled versions of each other. If you know the size of a mammal, you can use scaling laws to learn everything from how much food it eats per day, what its heart-rate is, how long it will take to mature, its lifespan, and so on. Furthermore, the efficiency of the mammal's circulatory systems scales up precisely based on weight: if you compare a mouse, a human and an elephant on a logarithmic graph, you find with every doubling of average weight, a species gets 25% more efficient--and lives 25% longer. This speaks to everything from how long we can expect to live to how many hours of sleep we need. Fundamentally, he has proven, the issue has to do with the fractal geometry of the networks that supply energy and remove waste from the organism's body. (shrink)

Although the basis of modern biology is Cartesian, Descartes’s theories of biology have been more often ridiculed than studied. Yet, Dennis Des Chene demonstrates, the themes, arguments, and vocabulary of his mechanistic biology pervade the writings of many seventeenth-century authors. In his illuminating account of Cartesian physiology in its historical context, Des Chene focuses on the philosopher’s innovative reworking of that field, including the nature of life, the problem of generation, and the concepts of health and illness. Des Chene begins (...) by surveying works that Descartes would likely have encountered, from late Aristotelian theories of the soul to medical literature and treatises on machines. The Cartesian theory of vital operations is examined, with particular attention to the generation of animals. Des Chene also considers the role of the machine-model in furnishing a method in physiology, the ambiguities of the notion of machine, and of Descartes’s problem of simulation. Finally, he looks at,the various kinds of unity of the body, both in itself and in its union with the soul. Spirits and Clocks continues Des Chene’s highly regarded exploration -- begun in his previous book, Life’s Form -- of the scholastic and Cartesian sciences as well as the dialogue between these two worldviews. Introduction 1 Part One - Tales of the Bête-Machine [ 1 ] - Self-Movers 13 [ 2 ] - Where Do Machines Come From? 32 [ 3 ] - The Uses of Usus 53 Part Two - Machines, Mechanisms, Bodies, Organs [ 4 ] - Tools of Knowledge 71 [ 5 ] - Jeux D’Artifice 103 [ 6 ] - Unity of the Body 116 Conclusion 153 Bibliography 159 Index 177. (shrink)

Peut-on formaliser le vivant ? Peut-on réduire une plante à une simple formule mathématique ? Goethe ne l’aurait pas admis. Pour beaucoup encore, cette question ne se pose même pas tant elle peut sembler provocante et contre-nature. Dans une perspective à la fois historique et épistémologique, ce livre rend compte de travaux contemporains qui ont pourtant tous tenté de braver cet interdit. C’est en grande partie sur ce terrain, hautement problématique, que, dans les premières décennies du XXe siècle, on (...) voit naître puis s’épanouir la pratique des modèles mathématiques appliquée aux sciences végétales. On voit en particulier que ces pratiques nouvelles de modélisation entrent en concurrence avec une tradition ancienne de théorisation mathématique des formes du vivant. C’est même devant les limites des essais théoriques récurrents que le tournant formel des modèles se confirme et permet des avancées incontestables. À l’heure où toutes les sciences à objets complexes parlent beaucoup de modèles et moins de théories, est-ce le signe d’une victoire de la « modélisation » au détriment de la « théorie » ? Cette victoire est-elle définitive ? Cela a-t-il toujours un sens de les opposer ? Et qu’en est-il des « lois » ? En proposant une analyse des travaux mais aussi des positions épistémologiques de certains scientifiques impliqués, en explicitant le sens de ce qui les rapproche, de ce qui les distingue ou les oppose, cet ouvrage montre que l’émergence, l’expansion puis la diversification des pratiques de modélisation formelle du vivant ont contribué, sur le terrain scientifique lui-même, à bousculer les rapports épistémologiques traditionnels entre théories, lois et modèles tels qu’ils nous ont été légués par la physique. (shrink)

Le concept de vie subit dans le bergsonisme une série de transformations qui correspondent au développement d'un problème : celui des valeurs vitales. De Matière et mémoire à L’évolution créatrice, la notion classique de besoin – insuffisante pour caractériser le mouvement évolutif – est remplacée par le concept spécifiquement bergsonien d’indétermination. La catégorie de problématique permet alors de définir l’activité vitale et sa finalité paradoxale. Poser et résoudre des problèmes devient l’opération fondamentale de la vie et de la pensée qui (...) l’investit.From Matter and memory to Creative evolution, Bergson’s concept of life undergoes series of changes following the development of a question : what are the main vital values ? What is life aiming at ? The classical notion of need – that fails to give an accurate account of the evolution process – is replaced by the specifically bergsonian concept of indetermination. Thus, the vital activity and its paradoxical end is to be defined by the category of problematic. To raise and to solve problems becomes life and thought’s main operation. (shrink)

Des millions d'années avant l'apparition de l'homme, la vie avait déjà inventé la roue, le moteur atomique, le sonar, le vol stationnaire, la capture de l'énergie solaire, l'éclairage électrique, le GPS et des myriades de techniques qui nous dépassent encore complètement : cicatrisation, reproduction, congélation suivie de réanimation, et des cerveaux dont chacun des milliards de neurones est un univers informatique. Pour le comprendre, il a fallu attendre que nos propres technologies atteignent les profondeurs moléculaires du vivant, nous révélant (...) que les inventions de la nature étaient infiniment plus complexes que les nôtres. " Le service Recherche et Développement de la nature a 3,8 milliards d'années d'avance sur ceux de nos entreprises ", aime dire Janine Benyus, la naturaliste américaine qui a inventé le concept de biomimétisme. " Il s'agit de nous en inspirer pour pousser plus loin nos propres inventions, mais surtout pour corriger le tir de ces dernières, qui nous ont conduits dans les impasses écologiques que l'on sait. " Il existe trois niveaux de biomimétisme. Le premier consiste à imiter les formes de la nature. Le second, de plus en plus prisé des industriels, repose sur l'imitation des matériaux et des processus naturels. La vraie révolution repose cependant sur le troisième niveau, qui consiste à imiter les stratégies du vivant, sa philosophie. Ce troisième niveau a des implications fascinantes. Ainsi, contrairement à l'image que nous nous faisons de la " loi de la jungle ", la nature ne pratique la compétition que dans 10 % des rapports entre organismes. Les 90 % restants sont fondés sur la coexistence, le mutualisme, la coopération, le commensalisme, le parasitisme et la symbiose. A imiter absolument! (shrink)

Early modern automata, understood as efforts to ‘model’ life, to grasp its singular properties and/or to unveil and demystify its seeming inaccessibility and mystery, are not just fascinating liminal, boundary, hybrid, crossover or go-between objects, while they are all of those of course. They also pose a direct challenge to some of our common conceptions about mechanism and embodiment. They challenge the simplicity of the distinction between a purported ‘mechanistic’ worldpicture, its ontology and its goals, and on the other hand (...) an attempt to understand ourselves and animals more broadly as flesh-and-blood, affective entities (that is, not just breathing and perspiring, but also desiring and ‘sanguine’ machines, as La Mettrie might have put it). In what follows I reflect on the complexity of early modern mechanism faced with the (living) body, and its mirror image, contemporary theories of embodiment. At times, embodiment theory seems to be governed by a fascination with what the Artificial Life researcher Ezequiel Di Paolo has called ‘biochauvinism’ (Di Paolo, “Extended Life”): an unquestioned belief that ‘living bodies are special’. Yet how does the theorist define this special status? The question is apparently a simple one, or at least promptly yields an aporia which appears simple: to borrow a provocative phrase from Terry Eagleton, embodiment theory is obsessed by the body but terrified of biology. Yet at the same time, at least since Hubert Dreyfus and Andy Clark’s groundbreaking works, embodiment has been a legit part of cognitive science, yielding the even more recently emerged field of ‘embodied cognition’ (see the work of Larry Shapiro), which seeks to depart from traditional cognitive science, especially the latter’s understanding of cognition as computational, in order to instead underscore “the significance of an organism’s body in how and what the organism thinks,” in Shapiro’s words. (shrink)

Almost forty years after Adolf Portmann’s death, we welcome the publication of a collective monograph about the life and legacy of this unique zoologist and anthropologist. This work should be of interest to biologists who study the theoretical aspects of animal morphology or are interested in animal patterns, but also to philosophers of biology who investigate the aesthetic aspects of nature or the concept of organism. Intellectuals interested in these subjects – or non-mechanistic views of living beings in general (...) – are likely to be familiar with Portmann’s work, but this publication offers a look at various facets of his thought which are likely to be novel and of interest even to intellectuals already familiar with his thoughts. (shrink)

SummaryIn this synthetic exposition, devoted to the relations which exist between psľchic functions and anatomic structures, Dr Pontes first insists on the difficulties of the subject and of its scientific analysis. Soma, Psyche, and social Milieu form a kind of continuum which is artificiallľ dissociated by our one‐sided approaches. Experimentation cannot be fullľ practised on man, nor can its results on animal be extended to man without serious risks of error. Similar limitations appear if, resorting to the pathological method, we (...) try to apply to the normal conclusions arrived at through the Study of the abnormal. Special reference is made here to psychosurgery, a topic quite familiar to Dr Fontes, who is Dr Egas Moniz’ countryman.The author then summarises our present knowledge concerning the structure, connections and functions of encephalic centers, especially; the thalamus, the hypothalamus and the frontal lobes.Finally, he subscribes, though not without serious reservations, to the hierarchical conception of the Nervous Sľstem as well as of the human mind, first suggested by Jouffroy, after him developed by Baillarger, Janet, Wallon in France, by Hughlings Jackson in Great Britain, and recentlľ revived in Europe by von Mona‐kow and Mourgue, Eľ, and Delaľ. This view enables one to consider nervous or psľchic illnesses as various dissolutions, resulting on the one hand from the suppression of higher centers or powers, on the other hand from the liberation of lower ones. It agrees rather well with the informations gathered by the anatomy and the physiology of the nervous sľstem, and with the conclusions suggested by psychosurgical opérations. To the thalamus and hypothalamus correspond the lower and older manifestations of mind: emotion and instinct, to the cortex the higher and more recent adaptive and intellectual processes. The hypothalamus plays a most important role in the nervous machinery as a regulator of vegetative and instinctive life, of wake and sleep, of consciousness, and of the basic biological rhythms. At the cortical level the frontal lobe appears as the structural basis for such psychical functions as Ego‐control, Will, Personality, and succèssfull action on the milieu. (shrink)