A phenome occurs through the many pathways of the complex net of interaction between the phenome and its environment; therefore researching and understanding how it arises requires investigation into many possible causes that are in constant interaction with each other. The most comprehensive investigations in biology are the ones in which many biologists from different sub-areas—evolutionary biology, developmental biology, molecular biology, physiology, genetics, epigenetics, ecology—have collaborated. Still, biologists do not always need to collaborate or look for the most comprehensive explanations. (...) A more standard investigation in biology occurs within a single subarea, and uses well-defined experiments with very specific conditions. This paper is about causation and related explanation in plant phenome research and its relevance to Aristotle’s Theory of Four Causes. I argue that there are causes which resemble Aristotle’s formal, material, and efficient causes in phenotype explanation and occurrence; but causes which resemble Aristotle’s final causes occur in phenotype explanation only, not in the occurrence. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the neo-Aristotelian approaches, which usually reinterpret Aristotle’s ideas on form and/or borrow the notion of formal cause without engaging with the broader implications of Aristotle’s metaphysics. In opposition to these approaches, I claim that biosemiotics can propose an alternative view on life’s form. Specifically, I examine the proposals to replace the formal cause with gene-centrism, functionalism, and structuralism. After critically addressing these approaches, I discuss the problems of reconciling Aristotelianism with the modern view of life’s (...) organization. I claim that the notion of the final cause proposes a cosmological hierarchy and that this is the main problem with applying the formal cause to biology. An alternative categorization of conceptualizing life’s form involves the processual identity, relational property clusters, and context-dependent transmission of representational units. The third category points to a semiotic basis of the form of life. In this context, I offer to readjust the focus of the problem of matter-form duality by pointing out that form is primarily an issue of the subject-object relation. Biosemiotics helps to understand the constructive role of symbolic representation in living systems, which is crucial to extend the analysis of the form from cognitive representations to external phenomena. Emergence of subjectivity and perspectivity of interactions are key elements to bridge the form and actual processes within a non-hylomorphic account. To demonstrate transitions from the physical influence of shapes to the organic recognition of forms, I address the biological studies on the synchronization of coincidental inputs and enzyme specificity. (shrink)

Felsefe tarihinin hiç şüphesiz en önemli filozoflarından biri olan Aristoteles (M.Ö. 384-322), aynı zamanda bilim tarihinin de en önemli kişilerindendir. Yaşadığı dönemde henüz bilim ve felsefe ayrılmamıştır; bununla birlikte Aristoteles, bilimsel ve sistemli düşünmenin, örnekleme yapmanın, bilim insanının doğaya öğrenmek için yaklaşmasının ilkelerini, ilk kez bu derece düzenli şekilde ortaya koyan kişi olmuştur. Dört neden kuramı söz konusu ilkelerin temelini oluşturmaktadır. Bu çalışmada günümüz biyolojisinin en kapsamlı tartışmalarından biri olan ‘fenotipin ne olduğu ve nasıl oluştuğu’ konusunun, Aristoteles’in dört neden kuramı (...) ile ilişkisi incelenmiştir. Genotip, fenotip ve çevrenin son derece karmaşık yolları içeren etkileşim ağı, araştırılması için birden fazla nedensel sorgulamayı gerektirir ki bu sorgulama bir anlamda Aristoteles’in dört neden kuramının, maddi, formel ve fail nedenlerinin bir arada sorgulanmasına benzerdir. (shrink)