An Organizational Account of Biological Functions
By Matteo Mossio, Cristian Saborido, Á. Moreno. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 2009
333 citations recorded by the source corpus.
In this paper, we develop an organizational account that defines biological functions as causal relations subject to closure in living systems, interpreted as the most typical example of organizationally closed and differentiated self-maintaining systems. We argue that this account adequately grounds the teleological and normative dimensions of functions in the current organization of a system, insofar as it provides an explanation for the existence of the function bearer and, at the same time, identifies in a non-arbitrary way the norms that functions are supposed to obey. Accordingly, we suggest that the organizational account combines the etiological and dispositional perspectives in an integrated theoretical framework. 1. Introduction2. Dispositional Approaches3. Etiological Theories4. Biological Self-maintenance 4.1. Closure, teleology, and normativity4.2. Organizational differentiation5. Functions 5.1. C1: Contributing to the maintenance of the organization5.2. C2: Producing the functional trait6. Implications and Objections 6.1. Functional versus useful6.2. Dysfunctions, side effects, and accidental contributions6.3. Proper functions and selected effects6.4. Reproduction6.5. Relation with other ‘unitarian’ approaches7. Conclusions Introduction Dispositional Approaches Etiological Theories Biological Self-maintenance 4.1. Closure, teleology, and normativity4.2. Organizational differentiation Closure, teleology, and normativity Organizational differentiation Functions 5.1. C1: Contributing to the maintenance of the organization5.2. C2: Producing the functional trait C1: Contributing to the maintenance of the organization C2: Producing the functional trait Implications and Objections 6.1. Functional versus useful6.2. Dysfunctions, side effects, and accidental contributions6.3. Proper functions and selected effects6.4. Reproduction6.5. Relation with other ‘unitarian’ approaches Functional versus useful Dysfunctions, side effects, and accidental contributions Proper functions and selected effects Reproduction Relation with other ‘unitarian’ approaches Conclusions
Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8f333babdef77dab6c46a6d8045068bf2a578c98
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In History and Philosophy of Science
Citations in the corpus
- Autonomy and Enactivism: Towards a Theory of Sensorimotor Autonomous Agency (2017, background): “A naturalized account of norms (or normative functionality) in terms of the viability constraints of an autonomous organization has been developed at length in biology, mostly in opposition to evolutionary or adaptationist accounts of normative function (Barandiaran and Egbert 2013; Barandiaran and ”
- Biological Organization and Cross-Generation Functions (2011, methodology): “In a recent contribution (Mossio et al., 2009), we developed an organizational account of biological functions that relies on the understanding of biological systems as a class of highly complex natural self-maintaining systems.”