Fitness is a central theoretical concept in evolutionary theory. Despite its importance, much debate has occurred over how to conceptualize and formalize fitness. One point of debate concerns the roles of organismic and trait fitness. In a recent addition to this debate, Elliott Sober argues that trait fitness is the central fitness concept, and that organismic fitness is of little value. In this paper, by contrast, we argue that it is organismic fitness that lies at the bases (...) of both the conceptual role of fitness, as well as its role as a measure of evolutionary dynamics. (shrink)

Biologists explain organisms’ behavior not only as having been programmed by genes and shaped by natural selection, but also as the result of an organism’s agency: the capacity to react to environmental changes in goal-driven ways. The use of such ‘agential explanations’ reopens old questions about how justified it is to ascribe agency to entities like bacteria or plants that obviously lack rationality and even a nervous system. Is organismic agency genuinely ‘real’ or is it just a useful fiction? (...) In this paper we focus on two questions: whether agential explanations are to be interpreted ontically, and whether they can be reduced to non-agential explanations (thereby dispensing with agency). The Kantian approach we identify interprets agential explanations non-ontically, yet holds agency to be indispensable. Attributing agency to organisms is not to be taken literally in the way we attribute physical properties such as mass or acceleration, but nor is it a mere heuristic or predictive tool. Rather, it is an inevitable consequence of our own rational capacity: as long as we are rational agents ourselves, we cannot avoid seeing agency in organisms. (shrink)

In consciousness studies there is a growing tendency to consider experience as (i) fundamentally affective and (ii) deeply interlinked with interoceptive and homeostatic bodily processes. However, this view still needs further development to be part of any rigorous theory of consciousness. To advance in this direction, we ask: (1) is there any affective type that is always present in consciousness?, (2) is it related to interoception and homeostasis?, and (3) what are its properties? Here we analyse and compare Jim Russell's (...) core affect and Thomas Fuchs' concept of vitality, and propose a more encompassing notion that subsumes both: continuous organismic sentience. It provides affirmative answers to questions 1 and 2, and, regarding question 3, a preliminary list of thirteen properties divided into ontological, phenomenological, and functional categories. This is the first of a series of studies that will systematically address different notions of a fundamental, homeostatically-rooted affective type, to achieve a rigorous, unified concept for consciousness science. (shrink)

It is frequently claimed that our species is responsible for climate change, for a new impending mass extinction, for destabilising ecosystems dynamics etc. These claims might be interpreted literally as meaning that it is our species, not merely its constituent organisms, that is causing climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem upheaval. Such literal interpretation depends on what kind of answer is given to the general theoretical question concerning whether supra-organismal biological entities such as groups, populations and species can be morally (...) responsible for anything as collectives. I shall argue that organismality is the biological property grounding species collective moral responsibility. The question is thus whether our species is organismal enough to make it a morally responsible causal agent. (shrink)

In early German ecology, the key concept used to refer to a synecological unit was Biozönose. Taken together with the concept of the Biotop, it was also understood as an integrated higher-order unit of life, sometimes called a “Holozön”. These units were often perceived as having properties similar to those of individual organisms, and they informed the mainstream of German ecology until at least the late 1960s. Here I ask how “organismic” these concepts really were and what conceptual problems (...) they entailed. To do so, I focus on some almost forgotten dissident positions, especially those of Friedrich Simon Bodenheimer and Fritz Peus, which I contrast with the mainstream German ecology of the time. In a radical paper published in 1954 that postulated the “dissolution of the concepts of biocoenosis and biotope”, Peus in particular elicited a forceful response from many prominent German ecologists. An analysis of the ensuing debate, including especially a colloquium held in 1959 that was partly inspired by Peus’ paper, is helpful for sifting the various arguments proffered with respect to a quasi-organismic perception of the biocoenosis in German speaking ecology. Although German mainstream ecologists rejected the notion of the biocoenosis as a superorganism, ontological holism was quite common among them. Additionally, the mainstream concept of the biocoenosis was plagued by several methodological problems and much conceptual confusion, to which the “dissidents” rightly pointed. Some of these problems are still pertinent today, e.g. in connection with more modern concepts such as “ecosystem”. (shrink)

ABSTRACT:Organismal superposition holds that the same individual both is and is not an organism, as a consequence of organismal pluralism. When coupled with the assumption that death is the cessation of an organism, this entails that there is no unique answer as to whether brain death is biological death. This essay argues that concerns about organismal pluralism and superposition do not undermine a theory of biological death, nor entail any metaphysical indeterminacy about the biological vital status of a brain-dead individual.

ABSTRACT:According to the mainstream bioethical stance, death constitutes the termination of an organism. This essay argues that such an understanding of death is inappropriate in the usual context of determining death, since it also has a social bearing. There are two reasons to justify this argument. First, the mainstream bioethical definition generates an organismal superposition challenge, according to which a given patient in a single physiological state might be both alive and dead, like Schrödinger's cat. Therefore, there is no clear (...) answer as to whether organ retrieval from a brain-dead patient is an act of killing or not. Second, when combined with the dead donor rule, the mainstream position in the definition of death might lead to ethically unacceptable verdicts, since there is a discrepancy between terminating an organism and depriving someone of moral status. (shrink)

The principle of "organism"—of intrinsic and dynamic unity—and the existence of "organized bodies"—of living things—in the physical world represented crucial preoccupations for philosophers of nature and experimental naturalists across the eighteenth century. How to make sense of these in a manner consistent with a unified scientific understanding of the physical world became the inevitable challenge that accompanied these recognitions. In just this theoretical enterprise, Leibniz emerges to historical scrutiny as an indispensable and pervasive influence. Thus, we are very fortunate to (...) have the body of scholarship that François Duchesneau has devoted to this topic over the course of his illustrious career. In this... (shrink)

The topic of this paper is a theory of the organism as subject. It is an ascription of subjectivity to organic bodies. I restrict my analysis, in this presentation, to the question of temporality; particularly, to the way individual bodies produce out of their own metabolic activity the temporal field with which they interact. I structure this discussion by way of an elucidation of Gilles Deleuze’s concept of the larval subject as it emerges out of his Difference and Repetition. I (...) begin with the nature of repetition and time, move into an explication of organic rhythm, and unify these reflections in a reflection on the nature of organismic temporality. In terms moreproperly Deleuzian, I claim that out of the passive temporal syntheses constitutive of the present emerge the rhythmic contractions of the larval self and the polyrhythmic network of the organismic subject. In drawing on Deleuze in this way, I hope to achieve a novel and fruitful perspective on the individual nature of bodily time that makes credible an ascription of subjectivity, a concept traditionally afforded only to the human, to all living bodies. (shrink)

La théorie de l’organisme social était une approche foncièrement et largement répandue au début du 20ème siècle, qui était acceptée par de nombreuses orientations théoriques dans la sociologie et l’économie. L’approche de Rudolf Steiner s’y rapportant est bien connue. La théorie de Gerhard Stolzmann ne l’est pas autant. Ce dernier était un représentant de ce qu’on appelle le « mouvement des droits sociaux de l’économie politique » et au plan philosophique, il défendait le néo-kantisme (école de Marburg, de l’Allemagne du (...) sud-ouest). Stolzmann a connu et cité les écrits de Steiner sur l’organisme social, comme on peut le prouver. Dans cet essai, on va mettre au jour les communautés et tendances dans le concept de l’organisme social chez Stolzmann et Steiner. Tous deux ont mis en exergue l’importance du spirituel et en conséquence de la sphère du droit, pour la société et l’économie dans leur théorie. Mais Steiner eut essentiellement une amorce plus pratique. Son concept d’organisme social est plus une proposition de réforme pour l’économie et la société, alors que Stolzmann fait ressortir la signification théorique générale toujours valable de sa théorie. (shrink)

The model provided by the organismic point of view is quite different. Without having recourse to any transcendent vital force or immanent teleology, it nevertheless rejects the basic ideas of mechanism. More specifically, it replaces the analytical- summative conception by the idea of biological organisms as wholes or systems which have unique system-properties and obey irreducible system-laws. The machine-theoretical conception is replaced by a dynamic interpretation of living things, wherein organic structures are due to a continuous flow of processes (...) combining to produce patterns of immense intricacy. The reaction-theoretical conception is jettisoned in favour of the view that the organism is primarily a center of activity which is autonomous and not a mere response to external stimuli. Finally, the organismic model considers that biological systems are stratified, so that, e.g., viruses, genes, chromosomes, cells, multicellular individuals, supra-individual aggregates, etc., form a hierarchy of "levels" exhibiting an increasing degree of complexity. The whole of nature, indeed, contains "a tremendous architecture, in which subordinate systems are united at successive levels into ever higher and larger systems.". (shrink)

Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, Volume 45, Issue 3, Page 384-396, September 2022.

Several bioethicists have recently discussed the complexity of defining human death, and considered in particular how our definition of death affects our understanding of the ethics of vital organ procurement. In this brief paper, we challenge the mainstream medical definition of human death—namely, that death is equivalent to total brain failure—and argue with Nair-Collins and Miller that integrated biological functions can continue even after total brain failure has occurred. We discuss the implications of Nair-Collins and Miller’s argument and suggest that (...) it may be necessary to look for alternative biological markers that reliably indicate the death of a human being. We reject the suggestion that we should abandon the dead-donor criteria for organ donation. Rather than weaken the ethical standards for vital organ procurement, it may be necessary to make them more demanding. The aim of this paper is not to justify the dead donor rule. Rather, we aim to explore the perspective of those who agree with critiques of the whole brain and cardiopulmonary definitions of death but yet disagree with the proposal that we should abandon the dead-donor rule. We will consider what those who want to retain the dead-donor rule must argue in light of Nair-Collins and Miller’s critique. (shrink)

Organismic agency is often understood as the capacity to produce goal-directed behavior. This paper proposes a new way of modelling agency, namely as a naturalized deliberation. Deliberative action is not directed towards a particular goal, but involves a process of weighing multiple goals and a choice for a particular combination of these. The underlying causal model is symmetry breaking, where the organism breaks symmetries present in the selective environment. Deliberation is illustrated though the phenomena of mate choice and bacterial (...) chemotaxis. (shrink)

Life can be defined as combining two entities that rest on completely different physico-chemical properties and on a particular way of handling information. The cell, first, is a « machine », that combines elements which are quite similar (although in a fairly fuzzy way) to those involved in a man-made factory. The machine combines two processes. First, it requires explicit compartmentalisation, including scaffolding structures similar to that of the châssis of engineered machines. In addition, cells define clearly an inside, the (...) cytoplasm, and an outside. The cell envelope is more or less complicated in bacteria, and it is much more complicated in organisms made of cells with a nucleus (eukaryotes). Second, the machine also requires dynamic chemical processes, collectively named metabolism, that can be split into intermediary metabolism, managing chemical transformations and transport of small building blocks and management of energy (often with a rotating nanomachine, ATP synthase), and the macromolecule synthesis, salvage and turnover machinery which uses a variety of nanomachines, the ribosome being the most prominent one. The second entity which needs to be associated to life is the genetic program, in the form of the genome, composed of one or several chromosomes made of DNA. This is the entity which associates most clearly to information. -/- Natural selection uses information in a particular way: it is a process that uses energy to prevent degradation of any functional entity. This process keeps building up novel information within organisms. (shrink)

The logical pattern underlying twentieth century science is strikingly uniform from physics through biology and psychology to social science. Our purpose will be to analyze and illustrate this pattern, to trace its development, especially from the Middle Ages to the present time, and to suggest some possible consequences for the future.

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)

Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) is a tiny worm that has become the focus of a large number of worldwide research projects examining its genetics, development, neuroscience, and behavior. Recently several groups of investigators have begun to tie together the behavior of the organism and the underlying genes, neural circuits, and molecular processes implemented in those circuits. Behavior is quintessentially organismal--it is the organism as a whole that moves and mates--but the explanations are devised at the molecular and neurocircuit levels, and (...) tested in populations using protocols that span many levels of aggregation. Following a brief review of the main relevant features of C. elegans, I describe some of these circuits, and then discuss two contrasting approaches in behavioral genetics and neural network analysis of the worm. Finally, I outline the rudiments of a "field and focus" explanation model using the two contrasting approaches. (shrink)

As is clear in the 2008 report of the President's Council on Bioethics, the brain death debate is plagued by ambiguity in the use of such key terms as ‘integration’ and ‘wholeness’. Addressing this problem, I offer a plausible ontological account of organismal unity drawing on the work of Hoffman and Rosenkrantz, and then apply that account to the case of brain death, concluding that a brain dead body lacks the unity proper to a human organism, and has therefore undergone (...) a substantial change. I also show how my view can explain hard cases better than one in which biological integration is taken to imply ontological wholeness or unity. (shrink)

Un des problèmes les plus controversés en bioiogie philosophique, c'est l'unité de l'être vivant. Cette unité est tout à fait sui generis. En effet, nous nen trouvons aucun analogon dans la Nature inorganique. L'unite de l'eau, par exemple, c'est sa molécule dont nous connaissons bien la formule essentielle (H₂O). L'eau contenue dans un récipient, c'est une foule d'individus. Au contraire, l'être vivant, malgré le nombre immense de molécules dont il se compose, constitue un être parfaitement un. La preuve? C'est l'unité (...) de ses activités. Elles tendent toutes au bien de l'être vivant. Mais comment une multitude énorme de molécules, dans l'être vivant, peut-elle conspirer ainsi pour assurer un résultat favorable à l'individu vivant? Comment se fait-il que ces molécules puissent garder si scrupuleusement l'ordre de succession et de subordination dans leurs interventions particulières? Les Psychovitalistes (et il y en a encore de nos jours) disent que tous les êtres vivants possèdent, au moins à quelque degré, la conscience. Cet anthropomorphisme ne trouve aucune sympathie chez les biologistes sérieux. II a déjà été refuté par Aristote. Certains autres biologistes croient pouvoir résoudre le probleme en question en réunissant les forces physico-chimiques dans une "machine". Cette théorie a quelque chose de vrai. L'organisme possède toujours quelque structure. Or la structure rappelle, par plus d'un point, une machine. Cependant outre les ressemblances qui existent entre la machine et Torganisme vivant, il y a entre eux de différences nombreuses et profondes. Ce point a été bien saisi par les Vitalistes. Aussi ont-ils mis dans chaque organisme une "force" spéciale, irréductible aux forces physico-chimiques ("vis vitalis"). Malheureusement, la manière dont ils présentent sa nature compromet gravement leur thèorie au point de la rendre absolument inacceptable. Considérant les difficultés que le mécanicisme et le vitalisme soulèvent sans pouvoir les résoudre, certains biologues ont eu l'idée de présenter une théorie qui serait capable de surmonter "le dualisme mecanicisme-vitalisme" : elle reconnaitrait la pleine validité des lois physico-chimiques dans l'ordre de la vie, mais en même temps elle considérerait l'organisme comme un tout indivisible, inanalysable et absolument spécifique: elle verrait dans l'organisation caractéristique de l'être vivant le vrai facteur de son unité, de ses régulations, de ses restitutions. Mais ce facteur ne serait pas actif, ni, à plus forte raison, transcendant à la manière de la "vis vitalise". Ainsi cette théorie serait "accessible à la science" (L. von Bertalanffy). Elle porte différents noms: organicisme, holisme, théorie de totalité (Ganzheittheorie) etc. Dans certains pays elle est en vogue, dans d'autres elle est en butte à de rudes attaques: elle est considérée comme un "concept vide", comme "un cercle vicieux" (H. Ruyer). Nous croyons que ce reproche n'est pas sans fondement. En effet, nous ne comprenons pas comment les fonctions vitales s'expliqueraient entièrement par les facteurs totalement soumis aux lois physico-chimiques. Car enfin le fait que les éléments physiques et chimiques de l'organisme sont unis entre eux par des liens de "mutuelle interaction" (L. von Bertalanffy) en vue de former un "système" , une "totalité" (Ganzheit) ne change pas leur nature foncière ni, par conséquent, leurs actions. Pour procéder logiquement, cette théorie devrait accepter le "préformisme" (qu'elle rejette). De plus, elle est incapable d'expliquer l'origine et la nature de la "totalité" . Poussée à fond, elle aboutit à une impasse ou à une contradiction. Passons à l' hylémorphisme aristotélicien. On le confond souvent avec le Vitalisme. Il est à regretter que Driesch n'eût pas inventé un autre nom pour désigner la "vis vitalis". Car "l'entélechie" chez Aristote signifie une tout autre chose. D'abord elle ne "réside" pas dans l'organisme; j'entends dire, elle ne réside pas dans l'organisme tout fait. Car c'est elle précisément qui le construit. Mais elle ne le construit pas du dehors, mais du dedans; en s'unissant à de la matière elle lui donne une "forme" particulière d'être vivant. La forme en question n'est point synonyme des contours extérieurs. Elle apporte à la matière une transformation profonde comparable au changement que subit l'hydrogène quand l'oxygène s'unit à lui en proportion de 2: 1. L'organisme qui doit son origine à l'union de la matière et de la forme possèdet des propriétés qui ne se trouvent identiques dans aucune des parties composantes. L'action que l'entéléchie exerce sur l'organisme n'est point comparable à l'action du "pilote qui gouverne son navire" (Aristote); elle n'est pas d'ordre de causalité efficiente (motrice) mais formelle. En se communiquant à la matière, elle lui détermine sa nature; elle lui indique son comportement spécifique, sa manière d'agir. Aucun organe n'agit à son propre titre, ni, par conséquent, pour son propre bien: chacun agit au titre de la "totallité" , et au profit de celle-ci. Voilà em même temps le sens profond de la finalité dans le système d'Aristote et de l'action immcmente. C'est grâce è l'entéléchie que l'organisme possède une structure supérieure è celle que nous rencontrons dans le monde inorganique. Ce dernier point ne doit pas nous créer trop de difficulté. Les biologues parlent communément de la "hiérarchie" dans la Nature, de la "gradation" dans ses créations, des différents "niveaux" de la perfection. On sait combien les partisans de la Ganzheittheorie insistent sur ce point (L. von Bertalanffy). Comme théorie philosophique l'hylémorphisme aristotélicien fait certainement bonne figure permi les théories que les modernes ont inventées pour expliquer "philosophiquement" l'organisme. A notre sens il les surpasse toutes, comme nous avons tâché de le montrer dans plusieurs de nos ouvrages sur le système d'Aristote. (shrink)

Phylogeography involves the analysis of gene genealogies in a spatial context, to infer the historical processes that have shaped the current population structure and distribution of organisms. The field has expanded rapidly in the last three decades, triggered by important technical and methodological advances. However, these technical improvements have not been paralleled by major changes in theoretical paradigms. I suggest that phylogeographic techniques are underutilized, and that adopting an organismal, integrative, and iterative research program in phylogeography will reinforce the explanatory (...) power of the discipline. (shrink)

Following Mayr (1961) evolutionary biologists often maintain that the hallmark of biology is its evolutionary perspective. In this view, biologists distinguish themselves from other natural scientists by their emphasis on why-questions. Why-questions are legitimate in biology but not in other natural sciences because of the selective character of the process by means of which living objects acquire their characteristics. For that reason, why-questions should be answered in terms of natural selection. Functional biology is seen as a reductionist science that applies (...) physics and chemistry to answer how-questions but lacks a biological point of view of its own. In this paper I dispute this image of functional biology. A close look at the kinds of issues studied in biology and at the way in which these issues are studied shows that functional biology employs a distinctive biological perspective that is not rooted in selection. This functional perspective is characterized by its concern with the requirements of the life-state and the way in which these are met. (shrink)

Early in the 20th century, Charles Manning Child attributed organismal gradients in metabolism to interactions among groups of cells. Metabolic gradients are now firmly grounded in redox chemistry, yet modern work on metabolic signaling has consistently focused on the cellular level. Multicellular redox regulation, however, may occur when redox state is determined by the behavior of a group of cells. For instance, typically an abundance of substrate will shift the redox state of mitochondria in the direction of reduction, leading to (...) increased reactive oxygen species (ROS). These ROS, in turn, may modify the conformation and activity of proteins involved in signaling pathways, resulting in phenotypic changes. In contrast, if substrate triggers the contractions of a muscular structure comprising mitochondrion‐rich cells, the resulting metabolic demand may shift the redox state in the direction of oxidation, with a corresponding decrease of ROS and different phenotypic effects. Indeed, colonial hydroids exemplify this process. Parallel examples may occur whenever mitochondria are concentrated in cells of structures that can respond to environmental perturbations with increased metabolic demand. In these circumstances, predicting the direction of metabolic signaling may require an understanding of events at the organismal level. BioEssays 28:72–77, 2006. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)