>> Terms I would like to see defined are:
>>
>> self-producing
>Involves the fact that a system [my reference is most of the time an
>organisms] can establish a flow of material that keeps the structure
>of itsselve stable. So a bacteria eats, and the material it eats is
>used to get energy needed for the flow, and the material is used to
>build itsselve.
More generally, that the system constructs at least some of its own
components. Begs the question of what "system", "component", and
"construction" mean.
>> self-reproducing
>To copy itsselve.
Right: that the system constructs a copy of itself.
>> self-referential
Here I think you're in an entirely different domain, and depart from Hans.
Self-referential means to refer to oneself, so we must understand
"reference", which is an old chestnut from philosophy of language and
semiotics. Here I would refer to Pattee's "semantic closure", which
(briefly) states that the interpreter of a code is at the same time a
referent of that code. This is certainly true in organisms in virtue of the
genetic code, and is likely related to self-production if not
self-reproduction of organisms, but that link is not clear, nor is it clear
what this might mean in non-biotic contexts.
>> autopoeitic
>Being a system that self-produces in a self-referential way. I am not
>sure if you can self-produce without self-referentiality.
This is not a word I've used much, but rather watch it spin around me. I
think self-productive might be synonymous.
>> self-organised
>Having an organization that is not 'designed' from outside, or
>planned conciously, but that arizes or emerges from within.
Another old chestnut, this time from systems theory. This is something I've
studied a bit, and believe that I've identified some semantic ambiguity in
the term. "Organization" might be somewhat clear, and the verb "to
organize" as well, but the prefix "self-" assume some kind of agency
relation. That is, A organizes B. If B = A, then A organizes itself. I
don't believe that only in the most rudimentary cases, like a child sorting
blocks, is it clear that A organizes B. Usually, B is involved in a complex
set of interactions with A, but also C, D, and E, and with itself
internally, all of which are interacting with each other, and one result of
all of these processes is that B becomes more organized. At that point,
the agency is far from clear.
But clearly PURE self-organization is impossible: everything is
other-organized to SOME extent. That is, if there is NO other-organization,
then there is no degree of interaction with an environment, and therefore
there is thermodynamic isolation, and thus necessarily degradation to
equilibrium. Taking the hurricane as the exemplar of a self-organizing
system, it must interact with its environment to become organized. This is
only PARTIALLY self-organized.
O---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
| Cliff Joslyn, NRC Research Associate, Cybernetician at Large
| Mail Code 522.3, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771 USA
| joslyn@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov http://groucho.gsfc.nasa.gov/joslyn 301-286-2598
V All the world is biscuit-shaped. . .