This paper critically revises the organisational account of teleology, which argues that living systems are first and foremost oriented towards a goal: maintaining their own conditions of existence. It points out some limitations of this account, mainly in the capability to account for the richness and complexity of biological systems and their purposeful behaviours. It identifies the reason of these limitations in the theoretical grounding of this account, specifically in the too narrow notion of closure of constraints, focused on self-production. (...) It proposes to ground an organisational account of biological teleology in the capability of living system not just to produce and replace their parts, but to control their own internal dynamics and behaviours in such a way as to maintain themselves. This theoretical framework has two advantages. It better captures the distinctive features of biological organisations and consequently the richness and active nature of their purposeful behaviours. By doing so, it makes it possible to apply this framework beyond minimal theoretical models to real biological cases. (shrink)

Living systems are complex systems made of components that tend to degrade, but nonetheless they maintain themselves far from equilibrium. This requires living systems to extract energy and materials from the environment and use them to build and repair their parts. They do so by regulating their activities on the basis of their internal and external conditions in ways that allow them to keep living. The philosophical and theoretical approach discussed in this book aims to explain these features of biological (...) systems by appealing to their organization. One of its distinctive features is that it addresses classical and more recent issues in philosophy of biology, from origins and definitions of life to biological teleology and functions, from an original perspective mainly focused on the living system, its physiology and behavior, rather than evolution. The book discusses and revises the conceptual foundations of this approach and presents an updated version of it. (shrink)

This paper focuses on physiological integration in multicellular systems, a notion often associated with biological individuality, but which has not received enough attention and needs a thorough theoretical treatment. Broadly speaking, physiological integration consists in how different components come together into a cohesive unit in which they are dependent on one another for their existence and activity. This paper argues that physiological integration can be understood by considering how the components of a biological multicellular system are controlled and coordinated in (...) such a way that their activities can contribute to the maintenance of the system. The main implication of this perspective is that different ways of controlling their parts may give rise to multicellular organizations with different degrees of integration. After defining control, this paper analyses how control is realized in two examples of multicellular systems located at different ends of the spectrum of multicellularity: biofilms and animals. It focuses on differences in control ranges, and it argues that a high degree of integration implies control exerted at both medium and long ranges, and that insofar as biofilms lack long-range control (relative to their size) they can be considered as less integrated than other multicellular systems. It then discusses the implication of this account for the debate on physiological individuality and the idea that degrees of physiological integration imply degrees of individuality. (shrink)

This paper aims to provide naturalized explanations for the goal-directedness of ecosystem development and its underlying causes within the framework of thermodynamics. While ecologists often use thermodynamic orientors to describe the directional trends of ecosystem development, they typically reject teleological interpretations, constrained by a narrow understanding of “goals” as intentional or mystical. We argue that ecosystems developing toward thermodynamic orientors through self-organization align with the naturalized definition of goal-directedness in system-property theory, demonstrating that such development can be considered goal-directed. Critically (...) analyzing ecologists’ application of Mayr’s distinction between teleomatic and teleonomic processes, we argue that ecosystem development should be considered goal-directed rather than merely end-directed and that the Mayrian path inadequately explains this goal-directedness. To address this, we integrate ecological research with behavioristic and mechanistic approaches (including teleodynamics and relational agency) to identify patterns of plasticity and persistence in ecosystem development and to explain how this goal-directedness emerges from thermodynamic interactions. Additionally, we assess field theory as a complementary externalist teleological framework. Through a comparative analysis of these approaches, we advocate for a pluralistic explanatory framework for the goal-directedness of thermodynamic ecosystem development. By demonstrating that ecosystem development within the framework of thermodynamics should be considered goal-directed and explaining its causes, this paper provides an epistemological foundation for legitimizing teleology in ecological research and extends the discourse on ecological teleology beyond functional explanations to address questions of goal-directedness. (shrink)