> >The mainstream view in biology
> >(as you can read in any molecular biology textbook) is that life is
> >not self-producing (although they don't use these words) in the
> >strict sence...the story goes that life was established by the
> >happenstance formation (and combination) of molecules that had the
> >capability to replicate themselves.
It sounds to me that you are confusing origin of life, and a
description of it. In biology the view is indeed that firstly there
were re-producing beings, and later they became self-producing in the
sence of autopoietic [by meta-transitions if you want]. But I don't see how any
living [autopoietic]
being or system can arise without evolution by re-production. So
there is no tension between selfproduction and selfreplication, in
fact they can't do without each other.
In another post somebody said that there arer living systems that do
not need self-reproduction or self-replication. I would like to know
what he means, because I find that impossible. Unless you stretch
autopoietic to social organizations, in which self-reproduction in
the biological sence is not neccesary.
> Very simply stated the difference between a dissipative system and an
> autopoietic> system is that the latter is internally controlled while the
dissipative system
> is externally controlled.
A good example would be cristalline-growth and the growth of a colony
of bacteria.
> Autopoiesis must be "pre-adapted". That is, the right conditions need to
evolve
> in order for it to emerge. Autopoiesis without some "grounding" is UTOPIC,
> (which of course doesn't make it any less real.) in other words impossible.
I think this is the same as what I just said.
> >Would it be correct to say that self-replicating and self-producing
> >are two different issues?
>
> Autopoietic theorists would claim that self-replication is secondary to
> self-production, i.e. a re-cursion of self-production. This becomes more clear
> if we rephrase the term self-replication and call it self-re-production
instead.