BioConcepts

closureGeschlossenheit (ger.)

• The property of a system of being self-referential in its operations, e.g. of an organism aiming at its own maintenance (or, by reproduction, the maintenance of its type) or of a metabolic network in which every catalyst of metabolic reactions is a product of this same network.
  category wholeness

  1747

  [Le corps humain est une Machine qui monte elle même ses ressorts: vivante image du mouvement perpetuel.

  La Mettrie, J.O. de (1747). L’Homme machine: 14.]

  1805

  Das erste Hervortreten der Besonderheit, als Centralkraft der Natur, die in jedem Organismus, so wie in jedem Organ, als Lebensfunktion sich zeigt und durch seine Bestimmtheit und Geschlossenheit die Harmonie des Gesammtlebens des Organismus möglich macht, in die ideale oder eigene Erscheinung, meinen wir nun in dem Nervensystem, und zwar in seiner Sensibilität zu finden

  Kayssler (1805). Historische Entwickelung der Psyche als Naturwesen, oder Naturgeschichte der Psyche. Magazin für die psychische Heilkunde 1, 447-550: 476.

  1808

  [Das Thier ist ein geschlosseneres Ganze als die Pflanze. Die Pflanze kann sehr viele Theile verlieren ehe sie zu Grunde geht, man kann die meisten Pflanzen über der Wurzel abschneiden, ohne daß dadurch das Leben derselben aufhört, denn die Wurzel treibt eine neue Pflanze. Ganz anders verhält es sich mit den Thieren, sehr wenige können mehrere Theile verlieren, ohne zu sterben, und die wenigsten erzeugen verlorne Theile wieder.

  Tiedemann, F. (1808). Zoologie, vol. 1: 24.]

  1812

  [Tout être organisé forme un ensemble, un système unique et clos, dont toutes les parties se correspondent mutuellement, et concourent à la meme action définitive par une réaction réciproque. Aucune de ces parties ne peut changer sans que les autres changent aussi; et par conséquent chacune d’elles, prise séparément, indique et donne toutes les autres

  Cuvier, G. (1812). Recherches sur les ossemens fossils de quadrupèdes, 4 vols.: I, 58.]

  1917

  [Das System [der Kategorien] wäre als im Unendlichen liegend zahlwertig nicht abgeschlossen, aber funktional geschlossen in wechselseitiger Zuordnung seiner Momente.

  Bauch, B. (1917). Immanuel Kant: 200.]

  1919

  Wie die Phylogenie mit dem unhistorischen, so operiert die Entwicklungsmechanik mit dem inkausalen Formbegriff. Die Planmäßigkeit der Form bedingt die Geschlossenheit ihrer Determination, führt unweigerlich zu präformistischen Vorstellungen und hebt die angenommene Geschichtlichkeit wieder auf. Dieselbe methodologische Unachtsamkeit, die schon der Phylogenie gefährlich geworden ist, bereitet der Entwicklungsmechanik Schwierigkeiten. Mit zeitlosen und inkausalen Begriffen der idealistischen Morphologie ist eben da nicht auszukommen, wo die Geschichte des Lebens und seine Ursachen erforscht werden sollen.

  Schaxel, J. (1919). Grundzüge der Theorienbildung in der Biologie: 43

  1926

  Zeigten […] die gesellschaftlichen Lebensverbindungen in der Tat eine funktionale Geschlossenheit, die sich derjenigen der Organismen vergliche, so wäre es unverständlich, wie die freie Beweglichkeit der Leiber mit ihr zusammen bestehen könnte.

  Litt, T. (1919/26). Individuum und Gemeinschaft. Grundlegung der Kulturphilosophie: 283.

  1950

  Alles, was sich durch innere Geschlossenheit aus dem durchgehenden Weltzusammenhange heraushebt [ist ein ganzheitliches Gefüge…], auch wenn es nicht von räumlich scharfen Grenzen, wie der feste Körper von seinen Oberflächen, eingeschlossen ist

  Hartmann, N. (1950). Philosophie der Natur: 445.

  1967

  L’ouverture, c’est […] le système des échanges avec le milieu, mais cela n’exclut en rien la fermeture au sens d’un ordre cyclique et non pas linéaire. Cette fermeture cyclique et l’ouverture des échanges ne sont donc pas sur le même plan […] la notion d’un ordre cyclique semble indispensable à la permanence du système ouvert, sinon cette permanencene saurait comporter de mécanisme régulateurs (invoqué depuis avec raison par Bertalanffy) et se réduisait à un équilibre en tant que balance de forces opposées, ce qui n’est plus spécifique de l’organisation.

  Piaget, J. (1967). Biologie et connaissance: 182; 183 (IV, 11, iii).

  1979

  organizational closure is close to, but distinct from, feedback, to the extent that the latter requires and implies an external source of reference, which is completely absent in organizational closure. A network of feedback loops mutually interconnected is organizationally closed

  Varela, F.J. (1979). Principles of Biological Autonomy: 56.

  1982

  [The] symbol-matter-function dependence [in a cell] is an exceptional kind of interdependence that I call semantic closure. We can say that the molecular strings of the genes only become symbolic representations if the physical symbol tokens are, at some stage of string processing, directly recognized by translation molecules (tRNA’s and synthetases) which thereupon execute specific but arbitrary actions (protein synthesis). The semantic closure arises from the necessity that the translation molecules are themselves referents of the gene strings. I propose the principle of the semantic closure of symbol and matter as simply a generalization of this primeval fact to higher levels of evolution, including cognitive systems.

  Pattee, H.H. (1982). Cell psychology: an evolutionary approach to the symbol-matter problem. Cognit. Brain Theor. 5, 325-341: 333.

  1982

  The functional closure of living, autopoietic systems has important consequences for internal organization. Within those networks of mutual production no single component can control, regulate or produce other components without being controlled, regulated or produced by at least one other component. This principle is most evident in the metabolic system which is a system of total interdependence par excellence. A further consequence of this principle is that all self-referential systems - including all autopoietic systems - are functioning non-hierarchically
  

  Roth, G. (1982). Conditions of evolution and adaptation in organisms as autopoietic systems. In: Mossakowski, D. & Roth, G. (eds). Environmental Adaptation and Evolution. A Theoretical and Empirical Approach, 37-48: 40.

  1993

  Closure is based on types, not tokens

  Salthe, S.N. (1993). Development and Evolution: 154.

  2000

  We show how complex forms of organization are based on informational closure, which is an explicit, recorded type of formal causation allowing a functional articulation between individual organizations and larger, collective and historical (meta)organizations.

  Moreno, A. (2000). Closure, identity and the emergence of formal causation. In: Chandler, J.L.R. & Vijver, G. van de (eds.). Closure. Emergent Organizations and Their Dynamics, 112-121: 112.

  2000

  functionality is only possible under a closure of operations [...]. Only when the causal chain from one part to the next closes or feeds back in a closed loop – at once a feedback on the level of parts and an emergent function defined [...] as a part-whole relation – can we talk about a genuine function

  Emmeche, C. (2000). Closure, function, emergence, semiosis and life: the same idea? In: Chandler, J.L.R. & Vijver, G. van de (eds.). Closure. Emergent Organizations and Their Dynamic, 187-197: 195.

  2000

  cohesion is the logical closure of the relations among elements of a thing that keep it from being disrupted by internal and external forces. In addition, the cohesion is stronger within the system than it is to any other system or component, so cohesion both unifies and individuates

  Collier, J. (2000). Autonomy and process closure as the basis for functionality. In: Chandler, J.L.R. & Vijver, G. van de (eds.). Closure. Emergent Organizations and Their Dynamics, 280-290: 285.

  2004

  interaction closure

  Collier, J. (2004). Self-organization, individuation and identity. Rev. Intern. Philos. 59, 151-172: 166.

  2006

  metabolic closure

  Letelier, J.C. et al. (2006). Organizational invariance and metabolic closure: analysis in terms of (M, R) systems. J. theor. Biol. 238, 949-961.

  2009

  organizational closure justifies explaining the existence of a process by referring to its effects: a process is subject to closure in a self-maintaining system when it contributes to the maintenance of some of the conditions required for its own existence. In this sense, organizational closure provides a naturalized grounding for a teleological dimension: to the question ‘Why does X exist in that class of systems?’, it is legitimate to answer ‘Because it does Y’.

  Mossio, M., Saborido, C. & Moreno, A. (2009). An organizational account of biological functions. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60, 813-841: 825.

  2010

  Biological systems must realize selfmaintenance through organisational closure

  Mossio, M. & Moreno, A. (2010). Organisational closure in biological organisms. Hist. Philos. Life Sci. 32, 269-288: 275.

  2013

  In addition to closure to efficient causation, and openness to material causation, already mentioned, there is a third kind of closure that is different from these, and is also important. We refer to a physical boundary, which would not only allow a self-organizing system to avoid being diluted out of existence into the bulk liquid or keep it separated from diverse toxic molecules, as a passive container would do, but if actively produced by the system itself it would be crucial for completing the individualization and gaining a proper control over the internal set of metabolic processes.

  Cornish-Bowden, A. et al. (2013). Simulating a model of metabolic closure. Biol. Theory 8, 383-390: 388.

  2014

  Closure of constraints […] is a specific mode of dependence between a set of constraints, in which a system that produces some of the constraints harnessing its underlying dynamics realizes closure. This means that not only the constrained processes form a causal loop, but that this loop is achieved because the constraints generated in the system influence each other so as to achieve closure. In formal terms, a set of constraints C realises closure if, for each constraint Ci belonging to C, (1) Ci depends directly on at least one other constraint of C (Ci is dependent) and (2) there is at least one other constraint Cj belonging to C which depends on Ci. For instance, a living cell is maintained because of the constraining action of constraints like enzymes and membranes, which harness chemical reactions inside the cell in a cyclic way. But, in turn, each of these constraints contributes to the generation (and re-generation) of the other constraints.

  Nunes-Neto, N., Moreno, A., El Hani, C.N. (2014). Function in ecology: an organizational approach. Biology and Philosophy 29, 123-141: 129.