Re: Re: Re: autopoesis
Hi Russell, I think if autopoeisis has failed to achieve some practical measure, it is a reflection of how under-developed our collective toolbox is for working with complexity and holistic systems in general. Imaginary numbers are a good example of an idea whose practical measure didn't emerge until well after its conception. Thanks for the link to Barry McMullin... interesting stuff. Terren On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote: Whilst I agree with Terren that autopoesis is an important part of what it is to be alive, it is not a very practical thing to measure. I wouldn't know if my artificial life simulations were autopoetic or not, except where the concept has been explicitly designed in (eg see Barry McMullin's aritificial chemistry work). Actually, its a refreshing change to have some (a-)life topics being discussed on this list. Cheers On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:45:47AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Terren Suydam You needn't agree with me. I respect that. It wasn't really a thought process, I just couldn't find anything to hold on to, something that works, and I am a pragmatist. Hence my use of the term mind-boggling. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-15, 11:23:43 Subject: Re: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, I'm interested in the thought process that led you to reject autopoeisis. I was intrigued by your recent post about life that defined it as the process of creation, rather than the object of it. Personally I think autopoeisis is an important concept, one of the best yet put forward towards the goal of defining life. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea in terms of applying it beyond the biological domain. As it only deals with relations among a network of processes, it does not assume the physical. At the very least is is indispensable as a framework for understanding autonomy. Best, Terren On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I agree. I was wrong about autopoesis. It is a mind-boggling definition of life, maybe not even that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 09:26:19 Subject: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Autopoesis is a useful definition for life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Autopoiesis (from Greek a?to- (auto-), meaning self, and p???s?? (poiesis), meaning creation, production) literally means self-creation and expresses a fundamental dialectic among structure, mechanism and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1] [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.[2] This seems to me more a description for machines/hallucinations that lack flexibility; such as how media, politics, and market are framed in public discourse. Like Luhmann said they tend to be operationally closed. The statement? above continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them stands counter to transformations which would indeed change (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1], specifically the concreteness of the unity and the discreetness of its domain is undermined by transformation. The original Greek definition, does ring a bell for creative processes and dreaming however, but in an operationally less bounded sense. m ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- You received this message because you are
Re: Re: Re: autopoesis
Hi Terren Suydam You needn't agree with me. I respect that. It wasn't really a thought process, I just couldn't find anything to hold on to, something that works, and I am a pragmatist. Hence my use of the term mind-boggling. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-15, 11:23:43 Subject: Re: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, I'm interested in the thought process that led you to reject autopoeisis. I was intrigued by your recent post about life that defined it as the process of creation, rather than the object of it. Personally I think autopoeisis is an important concept, one of the best yet put forward towards the goal of defining life. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea in terms of applying it beyond the biological domain. As it only deals with relations among a network of processes, it does not assume the physical. At the very least is is indispensable as a framework for understanding autonomy. Best, Terren On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I agree. I was wrong about autopoesis. It is a mind-boggling definition of life, maybe not even that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 09:26:19 Subject: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Autopoesis is a useful definition for life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Autopoiesis (from Greek a?to- (auto-), meaning self, and p???s?? (poiesis), meaning creation, production) literally means self-creation and expresses a fundamental dialectic among structure, mechanism and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1] [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.[2] This seems to me more a description for machines/hallucinations that lack flexibility; such as how media, politics, and market are framed in public discourse. Like Luhmann said they tend to be operationally closed. The statement? above continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them stands counter to transformations which would indeed change (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1], specifically the concreteness of the unity and the discreetness of its domain is undermined by transformation. The original Greek definition, does ring a bell for creative processes and dreaming however, but in an operationally less bounded sense. m ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message
Re: Re: Re: autopoesis
Whilst I agree with Terren that autopoesis is an important part of what it is to be alive, it is not a very practical thing to measure. I wouldn't know if my artificial life simulations were autopoetic or not, except where the concept has been explicitly designed in (eg see Barry McMullin's aritificial chemistry work). Actually, its a refreshing change to have some (a-)life topics being discussed on this list. Cheers On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:45:47AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Terren Suydam You needn't agree with me. I respect that. It wasn't really a thought process, I just couldn't find anything to hold on to, something that works, and I am a pragmatist. Hence my use of the term mind-boggling. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-15, 11:23:43 Subject: Re: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, I'm interested in the thought process that led you to reject autopoeisis. I was intrigued by your recent post about life that defined it as the process of creation, rather than the object of it. Personally I think autopoeisis is an important concept, one of the best yet put forward towards the goal of defining life. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea in terms of applying it beyond the biological domain. As it only deals with relations among a network of processes, it does not assume the physical. At the very least is is indispensable as a framework for understanding autonomy. Best, Terren On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I agree. I was wrong about autopoesis. It is a mind-boggling definition of life, maybe not even that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 09:26:19 Subject: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Autopoesis is a useful definition for life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Autopoiesis (from Greek a?to- (auto-), meaning self, and p???s?? (poiesis), meaning creation, production) literally means self-creation and expresses a fundamental dialectic among structure, mechanism and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1] [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.[2] This seems to me more a description for machines/hallucinations that lack flexibility; such as how media, politics, and market are framed in public discourse. Like Luhmann said they tend to be operationally closed. The statement? above continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them stands counter to transformations which would indeed change (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1], specifically the concreteness of the unity and the discreetness of its domain is undermined by transformation. The original Greek definition, does ring a bell for creative processes and dreaming however, but in an operationally less bounded sense. m ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
