>In my opinion, reproductive capacity is not necessary to the basic definition
>of living entities.
That's what I meant with my living/life distinction. With "living" I mean living
beings, simply organisms. With "Life" I mean LIFE in the grand sense, i.e. the
great portion of phenomena that we strongly associate with organisms, e.g.
reproduction, evolution etc.
> What would
>distinguish the toy (built to be 'autonomous') from the animal it resembles
>(genetically re-produced to be 'autonomous')?
The toy is not a dissipative system, and autopoietic systems MUST be dissipative
in order to be alive. One of Maturana's biggest bummers was not to limit
autopoiesis to dissipative structures. He was ready to deem his simple computer
models alive because they satisfied his autopoiesis. His computer model did
indeed have an autopoietic structure, but lacked the dissipative element.
>Would you accept that living things are autopoietic (whether or not they
>re-produce)? If so, then I understand your example of warm-blooded vs.
>cold-blooded animals was an analogy to illustrate the difference between
>internal and external control. Certainly both use internal metabolic
>processes to support and reinforce their structure.
I don't immediately see the connection between reproduction and metabolism, but
you are right that my example was an analogy to illustrate the difference
between external and internal control.
Onar.