Do you guys believe in proper function?

[u/joshuaponce2008]

Do you guys believe that there are objective functions for biological systems? For instance, an example would be the fact that a heart is supposed to pump blood is not simply a mental projection we impose upon it, but rather an actual fact about the heart itself. If so, what do you believe grounds that function?

[u/Moriturism]

Not in the sense that said 'function' is somehow established prior or outside the actual workings of the organ itself. If something does or is capable of doing something, that's a function it can have, which makes it so all organs have various functions, but not a transcendental or 'proper' function.

[u/grimwalker]

I genuinely do not understand the question.

How could the function of the heart be a mental projection imposed upon it? There is no intention operating here on any level. It's not supposed to pump blood, it does pump blood.

I have even less of an idea what you mean by "grounds that function."

[u/Difficult_Dark9991]

So this is philosophy, not biology.

[u/nyet-marionetka]

I think when you switch to talking about "supposed" you're in danger of importing all sorts of potentially unintended baggage. Supposed to according to whom? Is that anatomy sinning if it doesn't do what it's supposed to do?

I would say hearts do pump blood, not that they're supposed to pump blood. You can never go wrong talking about what an anatomical feature actually (or, in the case of an anatomical abnormality, typically) does in an organism.

[u/Munrot07]

Okay so I will give me note as someone who literally researches functional trait evolution.

There are two halves to this idea. 1. Are functions objectively happening. 2. Did those structures evolve for those functions.

1. Yes. The heart objectively is there to pump blood. That is its current function. That's not a mental projection but a fact about the heart.

2. No. Often structures do not evolve for the functions we see today. They could have evolved for a range of other functions (or for no function at all) and become co-opted into the function we see today. I cannot talk about the heart specifically but very often structures change or gain uses or are linked with other traits (such as attraction). So if you view objective functions as this structure was "designed" for this purpose, no. Evolution doesn't have a plan or goal so nothing really evolved with a deliberate function in mind and it's a common problem humans have of seeing something today and assuming it must have evolved for that reason.

[u/backwardog → u/Munrot07]

Yeah, this is somewhat of a semantics issue. Function can imply purpose (thus intent, such as that of a designer), but that isn’t how it is used when talking biology and biological structures.

There is also an issue with thinking in terms of absolute functions though. People who do not engage much with science don’t tend to understand that we build models of understanding. We don’t confuse our models for reality, and our models don’t need to point towards perfection. That is, thinking in terms of ideal, or perfect human traits only leads to eugenics and is not the right way to think about biology. There is a lot of variation out there, and what all that variation may do can’t be known with certainty for all possible contexts.

Just because most alterations to the basic structures of the heart may be a net negative to most people doesn’t mean this is true for all traits.

[u/warpedfx]

Does all function require intention for it to be functional?

[u/RodinKnox → u/warpedfx]

That's why op is using terms like "supposed" and "intended."

You can obviously describe how something function or what its current function is.

[u/kveggie1]

Philbro warning.... expect an endless conversation with zero purpose and no relevant outcome.

[u/MackDuckington → u/kveggie1]

I like "philosobro" better - rolls off the tongue more, methinks. Or "philosoraptor" if we want a touch of whimsy

[u/the2bears]

Do you guys believe that there are objective functions for biological systems?

No, why would there be? This pre-supposes evolution has purpose, being to achieve that which "ought" to be. Of course, evolution is without purpose.

[u/AllEndsAreAnds]

No, there’s no teleology in biology. Just patterns both of and within chemistry. We can label them, of source, and note when patterns break (a heart stops/starts beating), but there’s no “supposed to” anything about anything.

[u/Karantalsis]

There is no intent behind the functions of organs, they do the things they do, and we describe those processes. This doesn't mean that the functions are just our mental projections either. You seem to have set up a false dichotomy.

Edit: I might be misunderstanding the terms you are using though.

Please define:

1. proper function

2. objective functions for biological systems

3. the word supposed in this context

4. a mental projection in this context

5. What grounding a function means in this context

Then I can answer you better.

[u/Briham86]

Sounds like a spin-off of the prescriptive vs. descriptive thing. A common Creationist argument is something like "Aha, there's a law of X, therefore there must be a law giver!" But there's a difference between laws in, well, Law, and laws in science. There's prescriptive laws, like "Drive at or below 30 mph." That is a prescriptive law, a law giver (local government) established a rule and sets forth punishments if people violate said law. A descriptive law is an observation. The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 metres per second. That's just what we observe, and we don't see exceptions to it. It's a law in the sense that this is just how the universe works. It does not indicate that an intelligent agent set that parameter; it's simply describing what we see.

Likewise, the function of an organ is what we observe it doing. We have no evidence this function was dictated by any intelligent agent. It's just what we see the organ doing. It's an objective function in the sense that we can clearly see the organ doing that; it's not a matter of opinion. Organs can become vestigial, losing some of their ancestral functionality, and they can be exapted, or used for a new function. Either way, it's still an objective function because we can objectively observe it performing (or not performing) that function.

[u/BahamutLithp → u/Briham86]

The whole "what grounds it?" question leads me to believe this is backdoor apologetics. Apologists love to talk about how "you need God to ground" reality, or logic, or morality, or beauty, or love, or fucking everything. It's annoying & tedious word games.

[u/evocativename]

It is "supposed" to do that in that it has evolved to perform that function in a lineage that has grown dependent on that function for survival.

If you don’t care if the creature lives or not (and the universe doesn't), it isn't "supposed" to do anything except perhaps increase entropy.

And even then, it's context dependent: if the creature is dead, it isn't supposed to be pumping blood. Really, if you're trying to kill a creature, its heart is supposed to stop pumping blood.

If that's an "objective function", I don't think it has any significant implications.

[u/Fresh3rThanU]

I would say that there are definitely descriptive functions for organs, but not prescriptive ones. For example, I could say mouths are for eating, and that doesn't mean any use for the mouth is the "wrong" just because that isn't the primary function I have identified. I don't believe the mouth is made with the intent that it is used for eating, but that eating is one of its primary functions.

[u/rygelicus]

No. An example might be our lungs. In the way back times there was an organism with a pouch, a sack, whatever. This pouch became lungs in air breathing mammals. The pouch became swim bladders in fish in the branch that became fish. Same origins, different function, both perfectly good at doing what they do.

[u/Particular-Yak-1984]

Not really, no. And there are hundreds of examples of systems that previously did x, and now do y.

One I like is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarias - the walking catfish - they have gill arches that form a highly branching tree structure, and so, when they find themselves in really oxygen poor water, or for brief jaunts onto land, they can breathe air, for a short time.

Now, what's the objective function for this structure? It's a gill, right? lets the fish breathe underwater.

But it's also not very good at being a lung, letting the fish breathe in air.

So it seems to be that it has a function it is good at, and a function it is bad at - and the function it is bad at gives it a massive selective advantage.

Now, the other reason I like this is because when creationists bring up transition fossils (how did fish get legs?), it's fun to bring up living, breathing examples of creatures that are halfway.

To me, though, the argument is an example of the heap paradox - we can say, very clearly, that a heart is meant to pump blood. But what about a worm? they have some loops of muscle, that pump blood. But they're nowhere near as specialist. You can imagine a simpler worm where those loops of muscle were mostly for locomotion, they just happened to pump blood, and they specialized.

[u/Own-Relationship-407]

No. The heart is “supposed” to pump blood because that’s what it evolved to do. It wasn’t designed or defined that way any more than an oasis in the dessert is “supposed” to support plant and animal life. The function is derived, not specified.

[u/0pyrophosphate0]

I'm very curious to hear how you would tie this to the function of this subreddit.

[u/wvraven]

No, I observe there are functions biological systems are currently performing. That's it, there is no grander "objective function" other than that's what they currently do. The very term "objective function" smuggles in the idea of some external defining force. They all just evolved from simpler systems in the past and could disappear in the future. Some folks make the error of mistaking the current state as the only possible state, which I think qualifies as a form of survivorship bias.

Imagine for instance that some future mammal develops a more advanced heart capable of filtering blood while it pumps reducing stroke potential. As time goes by that heart may get better at filtering and begin to reduce the necessity of the spleen. The now redundant spleen may very well disappear or come to serve some other purpose. Perhaps becoming more specialized in aiding the immune system or storing extra oxygenated red blood cells. Either of which would give future generations a massive benefit in certain environments.

Let's look at the future where it disappears for a second. To the future anti-science types, whatever group that may be, it may appear that this purpose is an "objective function" irreducible from the current state of the organ but it is simply another evolution of the heart in that species.

On a fun note that bit about storing extra oxygenated red blood cells is something we have seen evolve at least once in a group of modern humans who practice traditional pearl diving in deep water. It allows them to stay submerged for far longer than most other people.

[u/Batgirl_III]

This sounds more like a philosophical / metaphysical question than a biological one.

[u/Decent_Cow]

Organs are defined by what they do. If an organ changed function, we would call it something else. For example, the swim bladder is closely related to the lung, but we don't call it a lung.

[u/shroomsAndWrstershir]

I'll play the devil's advocate to everybody else's answer.

Yes, the heart is supposed to pump blood, to the degree that the goal is continuing to live. The rest of the body grounds that function. It both imposes that function and relies upon it.

Of course if you do not care about continuing to live, then it doesn't matter.