On 14 Oct 2012, at 23:27, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
"Computational Autopoetics" is a term I just coined to denote applying basic concepts of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it more justice than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, but I have
seen no indication of that.

The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, namely that life is essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By this pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced that is alive, but life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless input data.
Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation.

So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand dunes,
huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET!

I am not sure a galaxy, or a sand dune has a "self", unlike a cell, or a person.

The self is directly related to the Dx = "xx" trick, for me.

Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley
Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :).

If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems to fit what I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of life: intelligence
and free will.

I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological
evolution is undeniably creative.

Is life more creative than the Mandelbrot set?, or than any "creative set" in the sense of Post (proved equivalent with Turing universality)?



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to