Abstract:Abstract Biogenic approaches investigate cognition from the standpoint of evolutionary function, asking what cognition does for a living system and then looking for common principles and exhibitions of cognitive strategies in a vast array of living systems—non-neural to neural. One worry which arises for the biogenic approach is that it is overly permissive in terms of what it construes as cognition. In this paper I critically engage with a recent instance of this way of criticising biogenic approaches in order to clarify their theoretical commitments and prospects. In his critique of the biogenic approach, Fred Adams (Stud Hist Philos Sci 68:20–30, 10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.11.007, 2018) uses the presence of intentional states with conceptual content as a criterion to demarcate cognition-driven behaviour from mere sensory response. In this paper I agree with Adams that intentionality is the mark of the cognitive, but simultaneously reject his overly restrictive conception of intentionality. I argue that understanding intentionality simpliciter as the mark of the mental is compatible with endorsing the biogenic approach. I argue that because cognitive science is not exclusively interested in behaviour driven by intentional states with the kind of content Adams demands, the biogenic approach’s status as an approach to cognition is not called into question. I then go on to propose a novel view of intentionality whereby it is seen to exist along a continuum which increases in the degree of representational complexity: how far into the future representational content can be directed and drive anticipatory behaviour. Understanding intentionality as existing along a continuum allows biogenic approaches and anthropogenic approaches to investigate the same overarching capacity of cognition as expressed in its different forms positioned along the continuum of intentionality. Even if all organisms engage in some behaviour that is driven by weak intentional dynamics, this does not suggest that every behaviour of all organisms is so driven. As such, the worry that the biogenic approach is overly permissive can be avoided.

Integrative pluralism for biological function

A Unifying Theory of Biological Function

Unifying concepts of biological function from molecules to ecosystems

Functional coexistence theory: a mechanistic framework linking biodiversity to ecosystem function

Two Dimensions of the Biological Function Debate

Adaptation and its analogues: Biological categories for biosemantics

Integrative biological simulation praxis: Considerations from physics, philosophy, and data/model curation practices

Interdisciplinary integration in biology? An overview

When imprecision is a good thing, or how imprecise concepts facilitate integration in biology

A continuum of intentionality: linking the biogenic and anthropogenic approaches to cognition

On the possible operation of natural laws in ecosystems

Representation, levels, and context in integrational linguistics and distributed cognition

The Promises and Realities of Integration in Synthetic Biology: A View From Social Science

Unity, Disunity and Pluralism in Science

There's Plenty of Room Right Here: Biological Systems as Evolved, Overloaded, Multi-scale Machines

The (Dis)unity of psychological (social) bias

A Concept of Complementarity Between Complexity and Redundancy can Account for Kant's Biological Teleology and Unify Mechanistic and Finalistic Biology

Functional homology and homology of function: biological concepts and philosophical consequences

Role of Utility and Inference in the Evolution of Functional Information

Collective intelligence: A unifying concept for integrating biology across scales and substrates

Compositionality and the Prospect of a Pluralistic Semantic Theory