Jureček Matěj, Švorcová Jana
Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, Praha, Czech Republic.
Department of Philosophy and History of Science, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Viničná 7, Praha, Czech Republic.
Biosystems. 2025 May 3;254:105477. doi: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2025.105477.
Organismal boundaries might seem like a straightforward and unproblematic organismal feature to study. They serve as fundamental demarcation lines that differentiate life from its environment, define identity, and maintain the functionality of organisms. But do they amount to an actual demarcation of organismal self? In this paper, we examine the philosophical and biological underpinnings of these boundaries, explore the essentialist and non-essentialist perspectives, and categorise organismal boundaries into three types: life-defining, physical, and those based on structural coupling. We shall argue largely against excessive reliance on physical boundaries, point to the inconsistencies and limitations of such thinking with the help of some formal approaches to boundaries (e.g., Markov blankets or theories such as (M, R) systems or the theory of autopoiesis), and try to harmonise the approaches by introducing a concept of boundary based on structural coupling. Autopoietic systems, such as cells, are structurally coupled to their environment, meaning their structures and those of their environment constantly influence each other. Organisms exhibit varying levels of the coupling capacity, of extending beyond their membranes to modify environments on scales ranging from molecular to planetary. Unicellular organisms, colonies, and multicellular entities construct niches that shape their survival and evolution. Building on the niche construction theory, we introduce the concept of microniches to describe various controlled spaces within organisms whose status of 'internal' is not always straightforward from the host perspective (e.g., intercellular spaces, digestive systems, or xylem). In the next step, we explain how these microniches are a direct result of structural coupling and how this concept can explain what is or is not part of a biological entity. We conclude with a discussion of Kantian organic wholes, starting with the cell in its entirety enclosed by a membrane and moving on to higher-order structures such as multicellular organisms or colonies, which differ in how they are established. Organic wholes of various levels are defined by informational boundaries and shared evolutionary norms that enable cohesion, cooperation, and distinction from the external environment across diverse biological and cultural systems. By integrating various philosophical and biological perspectives, we want to deepen our understanding of how life defines and sustains its boundaries and challenge certain established forms of thinking about organismal boundaries, which often rely on the physical or spatial approach.
机体边界似乎是一个易于研究且毫无问题的机体特征。它们是区分生命与其环境的基本分界线,界定身份,并维持生物体的功能。但它们是否构成了对机体自我的实际划分呢?在本文中,我们审视这些边界的哲学和生物学基础,探讨本质主义和非本质主义观点,并将机体边界分为三种类型:生命界定型、物理型以及基于结构耦合的边界。我们将大力反对过度依赖物理边界,借助一些关于边界的形式化方法(如马尔可夫毯或诸如(M, R)系统或自组织理论等理论)指出这种思维的不一致性和局限性,并尝试通过引入基于结构耦合的边界概念来协调这些方法。自组织系统,如细胞,在结构上与其环境耦合,这意味着它们的结构和其环境的结构相互持续影响。生物体展现出不同程度的耦合能力,从分子层面到行星层面,其耦合能力能超越细胞膜去改变环境。单细胞生物、群体和多细胞实体构建出塑造其生存和进化的生态位。基于生态位构建理论,我们引入微生态位概念来描述生物体内各种受控制的空间,从宿主角度来看,这些空间的“内部”状态并非总是一目了然(例如细胞间隙、消化系统或木质部)。在接下来的部分,我们将解释这些微生态位如何是结构耦合的直接结果,以及这个概念如何能解释什么是或不是生物实体的一部分。我们以对康德式有机整体的讨论作为结论,从完全被膜包围的细胞开始,进而探讨更高层次的结构,如多细胞生物或群体,它们在形成方式上存在差异。不同层次的有机整体由信息边界和共享的进化规范所定义,这些规范能在不同的生物和文化系统中实现凝聚、合作并与外部环境区分开来。通过整合各种哲学和生物学观点,我们希望加深对生命如何界定和维持其边界的理解,并挑战某些关于机体边界的既定思维形式,这些思维形式往往依赖于物理或空间方法。