The Multiple Realizability of Biological Individuals

Clarke, Ellen

doi:10.5840/jphil2013110817

Cited by 102 publications

(101 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The second aspect of the debate about monism focuses on the scientific disciplines used to establish our concept of a biological individual. In their reflections about biological individuality, philosophers of biology have tended to focus on a single biological field-generally evolution (Hull 1978(Hull , 1980(Hull , 1992Okasha 2006 Godfrey -Smith 2009;Clarke 2013). In so doing, they have left aside many biological fields where the problem of biological individuality has also played a central role, including physiology, developmental biology, immunology, ecology, the cognitive sciences, among others (Dupré and O'Malley 2009;Pradeu 2010;Minelli 2011;Godfrey-Smith 2013;Huneman 2014).…”

Section: Recent Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Philosophical debates about biological individuality have focused almost exclusively on an evolutionary approach (Hull 1978(Hull , 1980(Hull , 1992Okasha 2006;Godfrey-Smith 2009;Clarke 2013). One organising thought that informs this special issue is that a major aim for philosophers of biology should be to account for the numerous biological fields that explore the question of biological individuality.…”

Section: Attempts To Build a More Diversified And More Precise Concepmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include genetic homogeneity, germ/soma separation, the possession of a developmental bottleneck, policing mechanisms, etc. Some philosophers are monists-either in the sense that they defend one particular criterion, or insofar as they try to find a fundamental and unifying mechanism underlying several (or even all) criteria (Clarke 2013). Other philosophers are pluralists, i.e., consider there must be different criteria of individuality, reflecting different scientific questions and contexts (Wilson 1999(Wilson , 2005Pradeu 2012;Wilson and Barker 2013;Godfrey-Smith 2014;Sterner 2015;Love and Brigandt 2017).…”

Section: Recent Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The many faces of biological individuality

Pradeu¹

2016

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Biological individuality is a major topic of discussion in biology and philosophy of biology. Recently, several objections have been raised against traditional accounts of biological individuality, including the objections of monism (the tendency to focus on a single individuality criterion and/or a single biological field), theory-centrism (the tendency to discuss only theory-based individuation), ahistoricity (the tendency to neglect what biologists of the past and historians of biology have said about biological individuality), disciplinary isolationism (the tendency to isolate biological individuality from other scientific and philosophical domains that have investigated individuality), and the multiplication of conceptual uncertainties (the lack of a precise definition of ''biological individual'' and related terms). In this introduction, I will examine the current philosophical landscape about biological individuality, and show how the contributions gathered in this special issue address these five objections. Overall, the aim of this issue is to offer a more diverse, unifying, and scientifically informed conception of what a biological individual is.

show abstract

Section: Recent Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Attempts To Build a More Diversified And More Precise Concepmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Recent Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The many faces of biological individuality

Pradeu¹

2016

Biol Philos

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Huxley (1932) considered individuality to be characterized by autonomy and physiological unity (Table 1), which imply that the individual interacts as a whole with the external environment. Integration of lower-level component parts is closely related to physiological unity (Sober and Wilson 1994;Michod 2007) and integration is meant to reflect the interaction between parts of an individual, increasing the likelihood that heritable variation in fitness will exist amongst groups and not the parts (Clarke 2013). This interaction among parts can be thought of as affecting the fitness of the whole.…”

Section: Indivisibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of Individuality: A Case Study in the Volvocine Green Algae

Hanschen¹,

Davison²,

Grochau-Wright³

et al. 2017

Philosophy, Theory, and Practice in Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

While numerous criteria have been proposed in definitions of biological individuality, it is not clear whether these criteria reflect the evolutionary processes that underlie transitions in individuality. We consider the evolution of individuality during the transition from unicellular to multicellular life. We assume that "individuality" (however it is defined) has changed in the volvocine green algae lineage during the transition from single cells, to simple multicellular colonies with four to one hundred cells, to more complex multicellular organisms with thousands of differentiated cells. We map traits associated with the various proposed individuality criteria onto volvocine algae species thought to be similar to ancestral forms arising during this transition in individuality. We find that the fulfillment of some criteria, such as genetic homogeneity and genetic uniqueness, do not change across species, while traits underpinning other aspects of individuality, including degrees of integration, group-level fitness and adaptation, and group indivisibility, change dramatically. We observe that different kinds of individuals likely exist at different levels of organization (cell and group) in the same species of algae. Future research should focus on the causes and consequences of variation in individuality.

show abstract

“…However these assumptions are not needed to derive the rb > c rule, if we are happy to define 'r', 'b' and 'c' as above, as Gardner, West and Wild ([2010]) stress. 9 …”

Section: The Ks Decompositionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relation between Kin and Multilevel Selection: An Approach Using Causal Graphs

Okasha

2016

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-termsThe Relation between Kin and Multi-level SelectionAn Approach Using Causal Graphs Samir OkashaAbstract Kin selection and multi-level selection are alternative approaches for studying the evolution of social behaviour, the relation between which has long been a source of controversy. Many recent theorists regard the two approaches as ultimately equivalent, on the grounds that gene frequency change can be correctly expressed using either. However this shows only that the two are predictively equivalent, not that they offer equally good causal representations of the evolutionary process. This paper articulates the notion of an 'adequate causal representation' using causal graphs, and then seeks to identify circumstances under which kin and multi-level selection do and do not satisfy the test of causal adequacy.

show abstract

The Multiple Realizability of Biological Individuals

Cited by 102 publications

References 0 publications

The many faces of biological individuality

The many faces of biological individuality

Evolution of Individuality: A Case Study in the Volvocine Green Algae

The Relation between Kin and Multilevel Selection: An Approach Using Causal Graphs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About