Organisms and their place in biology

Ruiz-Mirazo, Kepa; Etxeberría, Arantza; Moreno, Álvaro; Ibáñez, Jesús

doi:10.1078/1431-7613-00018

Cited by 11 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…with or without a nucleus), can be conceived as a functionally-integrated and cohesive whole, the physiology of which can be studied (e.g., Kim and Gadd 2008). 16 Most present-day biologists, including many evolutionists, adopt a similar definition of "organism", as a functionally integrated and cohesive whole made of interdependent and interconnected parts (e.g., Wolvekamp 1966;Gould and Lewontin 1979;Bock 1989;Lewontin 2000) -a conception also expressed by philosophers of biology (e.g., Sober 1991;Sober 2000;Ruiz-Mirazo et al 2000;Godfrey-Smith 2013). Moreover, many biologists insist that the organism is the chief object of physiology.…”

Section: "Organisms" or "Biological Individuals"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality

Pradeu

2016

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The definition of biological individuality is one of the most discussed topics in philosophy of biology, but current debate has focused almost exclusively on evolution-based accounts. Moreover, several participants in this debate consider the notions of a biological individual and an organism as equivalent. In this paper, I show that the debates would be considerably enriched and clarified if philosophers took into account two elements. First, physiological fields are crucial for the understanding of biological individuality. Second, the category of biological individuals should be divided into two subcategories: physiological individuals and evolutionary individuals, which suggests that the notions of organism and biological individual should not be used interchangeably. I suggest that the combination of an evolutionary and a physiological perspective will enable biologists and philosophers to supply an account of biological individuality that will be both more comprehensive and more in accordance with scientific practices.

show abstract

Section: "Organisms" or "Biological Individuals"?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality

Pradeu

2016

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Defining Life: Conference Proceedings

Gayon

Malaterre

Morange

et al. 2010

Orig Life Evol Biosph

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Special Issue of Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres contains papers based on the contributions presented at the Conference "Defining Life" held in Paris (France) on 4-5 February, 2008. The main objective of this Conference was to confront speakers from several disciplines-chemists, biochemists, biologists, exo/astrobiologists, computer scientists, philosophers and historians of science-on the topic of the definition of life. Different viewpoints of the problem approached from different perspectives have been expounded and, as a result, common grounds as well as remaining diverging arguments have been

show abstract

Leibnizian organisms, nested individuals, and units of selection

2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leibniz developed a new notion of individuality, according to which individuals are nested one within another, thereby abandoning the Aristotelian formula at the heart of substantialist metaphysics,`one body, one substance'. On this model, the level of individuality is determined by the degree of activity, and partly defined by its relations with other individuals. In this article, we show the importance of this new notion of individuality for some persisting questions in theoretical biology. Many evolutionary theorists presuppose a model of individuality that will eventually reduce to spatiotemporal mechanisms, and some still look for an exclusive level or function to determine a unit of selection. In recent years, a number of alternatives to these exclusive approaches have emereged, and no consensus can be foreseen. It is for this reason that we propose the model of nested individuals. This model supports pluralistic multi-level selection and rejects an exclusive level or function for a unit of selection. Since activity is essential to the unity of an individual, this model focuses on integrating processes of interaction and replication instead of choosing between them. In addition, the model of nested individuals may also be seen as a distinct perspective among the various alternative models for the unit of selection. This model stresses activity and pluralism: it accepts simultaneuous co-existence of individuals at different levels, nested one within the other. Our aim in this article is to show now a chapter of the history of metaphysics may be fruitfully brought to bear on the current debate over the unit of selection in evolutionary biology.

show abstract

Organisms and their place in biology

Cited by 11 publications

References 25 publications

Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality

Organisms or biological individuals? Combining physiological and evolutionary individuality

Defining Life: Conference Proceedings

Leibnizian organisms, nested individuals, and units of selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About