Advertisement

Acta Biotheoretica

, Volume 67, Issue 2, pp 103–128 | Cite as

An Organisational Approach to Biological Communication

  • Ramiro Frick
  • Leonardo BichEmail author
  • Alvaro Moreno
Regular Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper aims to provide a philosophical and theoretical account of biological communication grounded in the notion of organisation. The organisational approach characterises living systems as organised in such a way that they are capable to self-produce and self-maintain while in constant interaction with the environment. To apply this theoretical framework to the study of biological communication, we focus on a specific approach, based on the notion of influence, according to which communication takes place when a signal emitted by a sender triggers a change in the behaviour of the receiver that is functional for the sender itself. We critically analyse the current formulations of this account, that interpret what is functional for the sender in terms of evolutionary adaptations. Specifically, the adoption of this etiological functional framework may lead to the exclusion of several phenomena usually studied as instances of communication, and possibly even of entire fields of investigation such as synthetic biology. As an alternative, we reframe the influence approach in organisational terms, characterising functions in terms of contributions to the current organisation of a biological system. We develop a theoretical account of biological communication in which communicative functions are distinguished from other types of biological functions described by the organisational account (e.g. metabolic, ecological, etc.). The resulting organisational-influence approach allows to carry out causal analyses of current instances of phenomena of communication, without the need to provide etiological explanations. In such a way it makes it possible to understand in terms of communication those phenomena which realise interactive patterns typical of signalling interactions—and are usually studied as such in scientific practice—despite not being the result of evolutionary adaptations. Moreover, this approach provides operational tools to design and study communicative interactions in experimental fields such as synthetic biology.

Keywords

Organisation Influence Biological functions Signals Synthetic biology Regulation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Derek Skillings and Matteo Mossio for their careful reading and useful comments on a previous version of this paper. This work was funded by the Ministerio de Economia, Industria y Competitividad (MINECO), Spain (‘Ramon y Cajal’ Programme, RYC-2016-19798 for LB, and research project FFI2014-52173-P for AM and LB), by the Basque Government (Project: IT 590-13 for AM and LB) and by CONICYT, Chile (Doctoral Scholarship 21151293-CONICYT and Supporting Doctoral Thesis Scholarship for RF). AM acknowledges also a Salvador de Madariaga Fellowship PRX17/00379 and he thanks the IHPST (Paris) for hosting his research stay during the first semester of 2018.

References

  1. Arch VS, Narins PM (2008) “Silent” signals: selective forces acting on ultrasonic communication systems in terrestrial vertebrates. Anim Behav 76(4):1423Google Scholar
  2. Bich L, Frick R (2018) Synthetic modelling of biological communication: a theoretical and operational framework for the investigation of minimal life and cognition. Complex Syst 27(3):267–287Google Scholar
  3. Bich L, Moreno A (2016) The role of regulation in the origin and synthetic modelling of minimal cognition. BioSystems 148:12–21Google Scholar
  4. Bich L, Mossio M, Ruiz-Mirazo K, Moreno A (2016) Biological regulation: controlling the system from within. Biol Philos 31(2):237–265Google Scholar
  5. Bickhard MH (2000) Autonomy, function, and representation. Commun Cognit 17(3–4):111–131Google Scholar
  6. Bickhard MH (2004) Process and emergence: normative function and representation. Axiomathes 14:121–155Google Scholar
  7. Blumberg MS (2009) Body heat: temperature and life on earth. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumberg MS, Alberts JR (1990) Ultrasonic vocalizations by rat pups in the cold: an acoustic by-product of laryngeal braking?. Behav Neurosci 104(5):808Google Scholar
  9. Blumberg MS, Alberts JR (1997) Incidental emissions, fortuitous effects, and the origins of communication. In: Owings DH, Beecher MD, Thompson NS (eds) Perspectives in ethology. Plenum Press, New York, pp 225–249Google Scholar
  10. Blumberg MS, Sokoloff G (2001) Do infant rats cry? Psychol Rev 108(1):83Google Scholar
  11. Blumberg MS, Sokoloff G, Kirby RF, Kent KJ (2000) Distress vocalizations in infant rats: what’s all the fuss about? Psychol Sci 11(1):78–81Google Scholar
  12. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  13. Branham MA, Wenzel JW (2001) The evolution of bioluminescence in cantharoids (Coleoptera: Elateriodea). Fla Entomol 84:565–586Google Scholar
  14. Cameron AM (1966) Some aspects of the behaviour of the soldier crab, Mictyris longicarpus. Pac Sci 20(2):224–234Google Scholar
  15. Carazo P, Font E (2010) Putting information back into biological communication. J Evol Biol 23(4):661–669Google Scholar
  16. Christensen W, Bickhard M (2002) The process dynamics of normative function. The Monist 85(1):3–28Google Scholar
  17. Collier J (2000) Autonomy and process closure as the basis for functionality. Ann N Y Acad Sci 901:280–290Google Scholar
  18. Dawkins R, Krebs JR (1978) Animal signals: information or manipulation?”. In: Krebs R, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach. Sinauer Associates, Sutherland, pp 282–309Google Scholar
  19. De Ghett VJ (1978) The ontogeny of ultrasound production in rodents. In: Burghardt GM, Bekoff M (eds) The development of behavior: comparative and evolutionary aspects. Garland STPM Press, New York, pp 343–365Google Scholar
  20. Delancey C (2006) Ontology and teleofunctions: a defense and revision of the systematic account of teleological explanation. Synthese 150:69–98Google Scholar
  21. Di Paolo EA (1997a) An investigation into the evolution of communication. Adapt Behav 6(2):285–324Google Scholar
  22. Di Paolo EA (1997b) Social coordination and spatial organization: steps towards the evolution of communication. In: Fourth European conference on artificial life. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 464–473Google Scholar
  23. Di Paolo EA (1999) On the evolutionary and behavioral dynamics of social coordination: models and theoretical aspects. Doctoral dissertation, University of SussexGoogle Scholar
  24. Diggle SP, Gardner A, West SA, Griffin AS (2007) Evolutionary theory of bacterial quorum sensing: when is a signal not a signal? Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 362(1483):1241–1249Google Scholar
  25. Edin BB (2008) Assigning biological functions: making sense of causal chains. Synthese 161(2):203–218Google Scholar
  26. Ehret G, Haack B (1984) Motivation and arousal influence sound-induced maternal pup-retrieving behavior in lactating house mice. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie 65(1):25–39Google Scholar
  27. Fögen T (2014) Animal communication. In: Campbell GL (ed) The Oxford handbook of animals in classical thought and life. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 216–232Google Scholar
  28. Gagliano M (2013) Green symphonies: a call for studies on acoustic communication in plants. Behav Ecol 24(4):789–796Google Scholar
  29. Gardner PM, Winzer K, Davis BG (2009) Sugar synthesis in a protocellular model leads to a cell signalling response in bacteria. Nat Chem 1(5):377–383Google Scholar
  30. Godfrey-Smith P (1994) A modern history theory of functions. Noûs 28(3):344–362Google Scholar
  31. Godfrey-Smith P (2013) Information and influence in sender–receiver models, with applications to animal behavior. In: Stegmann U (ed) Animal communication theory: information and influence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 377–396Google Scholar
  32. Gould SJ, Lewontin RC (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 205(1161):581–598Google Scholar
  33. Hauser MD (1996) The Evolution of communication. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Heil M, Karban R (2010) Explaining evolution of plant communication by airborne signals. Trends Ecol Evol 25(3):137–144Google Scholar
  35. Hirth DH, McCullough DR (1977) Evolution of alarm signals in ungulates with special reference to white-tailed deer. Am Nat 111(977):31–42Google Scholar
  36. Kalkman D (2017) New problems for defining animal communication in informational terms. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1598-2 Google Scholar
  37. Kauffman S (2000) Investigations. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. Keely SJ (2017) Decoding host–microbiota communication in the gut—now we’re flying! J Physiol 595(2):417–418Google Scholar
  39. Keller L, Surette MG (2006) Communication in bacteria: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. Nat Rev Microbiol 4(4):249–258Google Scholar
  40. Krebs JR, Dawkins R (1984) Animal signals: mind reading and manipulation. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioral ecology: an evolutionary approach, 2nd edn. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 380–402Google Scholar
  41. Laidre ME, Johnstone RA (2013) Animal signals. Curr Biol 23(18):R829–R833Google Scholar
  42. Lentini R, Martín NY, Forlin M, Belmonte L, Fontana J, Cornella M et al (2017) Two-way chemical communication between artificial and natural cells. ACS Cent Sci 3(2):117–123Google Scholar
  43. Lewis DK (1969) Convention: a philosophical study. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  44. Lloyd J (1966) Studies on the flash communication system in Photinus fireflies. Museum of Zoology of University of Michigan, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  45. Lloyd EA (2015) Adaptationism and the logic of research questions: how to think clearly about evolutionary causes. Biol Theory 10(4):343–362Google Scholar
  46. Martinez M, Godfrey-Smith P (2016) Common interest and signaling games: a dynamic analysis. Philos Sci 83:371–392Google Scholar
  47. Martini L, Mansy S (2011) Cell-like systems with riboswitch controlled gene expression. Chem Commun 47(38):10734–10736Google Scholar
  48. Maturana H, Varela FJ ([1973]1980) Autopoiesis and cognition. The realization of the living. Reidel Publishing, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  49. Maynard Smith J (1965) The evolution of alarm calls. Am Nat 99(904):59–63Google Scholar
  50. Maynard Smith J, Harper DGC (2003) Animal signals. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. McLaughlin P (2001) What functions explain. Functional explanation and self-reproducing systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Millikan RG (1989) In defense of proper functions. Philos Sci 56(2):288–302Google Scholar
  53. Moiseff A, Pollack GS, Hoy RR (1978) Steering responses of flying crickets to sound and ultrasound: mate attraction and predator avoidance. Proc Natl Acad Sci 75(8):4052–4056Google Scholar
  54. Montévil M, Mossio M (2015) Biological organisation as closure of constraints. J Theor Biol 372:179–191Google Scholar
  55. Moreno A, Mossio M (2015) Biological autonomy: a philosophical and theoretical enquiry. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  56. Morton ES (2017) Animal vocal communication: assessment and management roles, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  57. Mossio M, Bich L (2017) What makes biological organisation teleological? Synthese 194(4):1089–1114Google Scholar
  58. Mossio M, Saborido C (2016) Functions, organization and etiology: a reply to Artiga and Martinez. Acta Biotheor 64(3):263–275Google Scholar
  59. Mossio M, Saborido C, Moreno A (2009) An organizational account of biological functions. Br J Philos Sci 60(4):813–841Google Scholar
  60. Neander K (1991) The teleological notion of ‘function’. Australas J Philos 69(4):454–468Google Scholar
  61. Nunes-Neto N, Moreno A, El-Hani CN (2014) Function in ecology: an organizational approach. Biol Philos 29(1):123–141Google Scholar
  62. Otte D (1974) Effects and functions in the evolution of signaling systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 5:385–417Google Scholar
  63. Owings DH, Morton ES (1998) Animal vocal communication: a new approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  64. Owren MJ, Rendall D, Ryan MJ (2010) Redefining animal signaling: influence versus information in communication. Biol Philos 25(5):755–780Google Scholar
  65. Page RA, Ryan MJ (2005) Flexibility in assessment of prey cues: frog-eating bats and frog calls. Proc R Soc B 272:841–847Google Scholar
  66. Pattee HH (1973) The physical basis and origin of hierarchical control. In: Pattee HH (ed) Hierarchy theory. Braziller, New York, pp 73–108Google Scholar
  67. Piaget J (1967) Biologie et Connaissance. Gallimard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  68. Pigliucci M, Kaplan J (2000) The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later. Trends Ecol Evol 15(2):66–70Google Scholar
  69. Rampioni G, Mavelli F, Damiano L, D’Angelo F, Messina M, Leoni L, Stano P (2014) A synthetic biology approach to bio-chem-ICT: first moves towards chemical communication between synthetic and natural cells. Nat Comput 13:333–349Google Scholar
  70. Rendall D, Owren MJ (2013) Communication without meaning or information: abandoning language-based and informational constructs in animal communication theory. In: Stegmann H (ed) Animal communication theory: information and influence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 151–182Google Scholar
  71. Rendall D, Vasey P (2002) Metaphor muddles in communication theory. Behav Brain Sci 25(5):637Google Scholar
  72. Rendall D, Owren MJ, Ryan MJ (2009) What do animal signals mean? Anim Behav 78(2):233–240Google Scholar
  73. Rhebergen F, Taylor RC, Ryan MJ, Page RA, Halfwerk W (2015) Multimodal cues improve prey localization under complex environmental conditions. Proc R Soc B 282:20151403Google Scholar
  74. Rosen R (1972) Some relational cell models: the metabolism-repair systems. In: Rosen R (ed) Foundations of mathematical biology. Volume II cellular systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 217–253Google Scholar
  75. Rosen R (1991) Life itself. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  76. Saborido C, Mossio M, Moreno A (2011) Biological organization and cross-generation functions. Br J Philos Sci 62(3):583–606Google Scholar
  77. Salmon WC (1998) Causality and explanation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  78. Scarantino A (2010) Animal communication between information and influence. Anim Behav 79(6):e1–e5Google Scholar
  79. Scarantino A (2013) Animal communication as information-mediated influence. In: Stegmann H (ed) Animal communication theory: information and influence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 63–81Google Scholar
  80. Scattoni ML, Crawley J, Ricceri L (2009) Ultrasonic vocalizations: a tool for behavioural phenotyping of mouse models of neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 33(4):508–515Google Scholar
  81. Schaefer HM, Ruxton GD (2009) Deception in plants: mimicry or perceptual exploitation? Trends Ecol Evol 24(12):676–685Google Scholar
  82. Schiestl FP, Peakall R, Mant JG, Ibarra F, Schulz C, Franke S, Francke W (2003) The chemistry of sexual deception in an orchid-wasp pollination system. Science 302(5644):437–438Google Scholar
  83. Schlosser G (1998) Self-re-production and functionality: a systems theoretical approach to teleological explanation. Synthese 116:303–354Google Scholar
  84. Schwarting RKW, Wöhr M (2012) On the relationships between ultrasonic calling and anxiety-related behavior in rats. Braz J Med Biol Res 45(4):337–348Google Scholar
  85. Scott-Phillips TC (2008) Defining biological communication. J Evol Biol 21(2):387–395Google Scholar
  86. Scott-Phillips TC (2009) The quest for a general account of communication: a review of sociobiology of communication. J Evolut Psychol 7(3):245–249Google Scholar
  87. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980a) Monkey responses to three different alarm calls: evidence of predator classification and semantic communication. Science 210(4471):801–803Google Scholar
  88. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Marler P (1980b) Vervet monkey alarm calls: semantic communication in a free-ranging primate. Anim Behav 28:1070–1094Google Scholar
  89. Seyfarth RM, Cheney DL, Bergman T, Fischer J, Zuberbühler K, Hammerschmidt K (2010) The central importance of information in studies of animal communication. Anim Behav 80(1):3–8Google Scholar
  90. Shair HN, Jasper A (2003) Decreased venous return is neither sufficient nor necessary to elicit ultrasonic vocalisations of infant rat pups. Behav Neurosci 117(4):840Google Scholar
  91. Silverman JL, Yang M, Lord C, Crawley JN (2010) Behavioural phenotyping assays for mouse models of autism. Nat Rev Neurosci 11(7):490–502Google Scholar
  92. Stegmann UE (2009) A consumer-based teleosemantics for animal signals. Philos Sci 76(5):864–875Google Scholar
  93. Varela F (1979) Principles of biological autonomy. North Holland, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  94. Waters CM, Bassler BL (2005) Quorum sensing: cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 21:319–346Google Scholar
  95. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  96. Wilson EO (1975) Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Belknap, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  97. Winning J, Bechtel B (2018) Rethinking causality in biological and neural mechanisms: constraints and control. Minds Mach.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9458-5 Google Scholar
  98. Wu D, Daugherty SC, Van Aken SE, Pai GH, Watkins KL et al (2006) Metabolic complementarity and genomics of the dual bacterial symbiosis of sharpshooters. PLoS Biol 4(6):e188Google Scholar
  99. Youmans WB, Tjioe DT, Tong EY (1974) Control of involuntary activity of abdominal muscles. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 53(2):57–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversidad Diego PortalesSantiagoChile
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversidad Alberto HurtadoSantiagoChile
  3. 3.Instituto de Filosofía y Ciencias de la Complejidad, IFICCSantiagoChile
  4. 4.Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, IAS-Research Centre for Life, Mind and SocietyUniversity of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU)Donostia-San SebastianSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options