> Hans-Cees writes:
>
> > I ...want to test my insights about this statement 'self producing is a
> > subset of autopoiesis' [or self-production].
>
> I assume you meant to test 'self [re]producing is a subset of autopoiesis'.
I think that I have a difficulty with this, maybe my understanding of
autopoiesis is good. For me autopoiesis means {=} self-production. I
see that you use some other criterium. I would like to know what this
is.
> > This does not mean that:
> > - a self-producing system is capable of self-reproducing
> > - a selfreproducing system must be autopoietic
> > - a self-producing system can arize without self-reproduction or the
> > involvment from systems that are self-reproducing [including the
> > computerprogrammer, if you count computer programmes in autopoietic.
>
> > So what is the use of making the set-theory statement? Isn't it so
> > that set-theory does a poor job for processes of change, and that the
> > processes we are talking about are about change [at leaqst
> > replication and self-reproduction are invloved in a lot of change
> > processes]. Isn't set-theory good for classes, sets etc, but not for
> > historical processes?
>
> All we were saying earlier was that...
> Just imagine two large intersecting circles. the circle on the right
> representing autopoeietic (or self-producing) systems. The circle
> on the left representing systems that can make a copy of themselves
> (systems that can replicate). The intersection would be systems that
> are self-producing and also have the ability to repicate themselves.
So the question then is whether one of the circles is empty.
>
> So it would seem that the following statements would be consistent:
>
> - a self-producing system isnt necessarily capable of self-reproducing
I agree
> - a self-reproducing system must be autopoietic
I do not agree. How about Eigen's hypercycles? Although I am not an
expert on this, it seems that before there was autopoietic life,
there were some sort of reproducing systems that were not capable of
self-producing. They do produce copies of themselves, but not an
environment in which they can do this. So a kind of RNA or DNA, but
without a cell. The theoriy goes that the cell came later and was an
adaption that worked better, because it was more stable in disruptive
environments. So the system without cell could self-reproduce, but
barely or not save itsself from disruption. It just had to reproduce
before it could be disrupted.
> - a replicating system isn't necessarily self-reproducing.
The crux here is the word system. If you take system to be something
that replicates itsselve, meaning that it doesn't need another system
to do that [like a virus needs a host], it would be the same as a
self-reproducing system [or am I wrong here?]. Then we are back at
the controverse above.
If it is just a
'system' in the way ideas, or information-clusters like memes
replicate [that do need a host] then it is correct. But I wouldn't
call that a system, since it has no clear boundary.
>
> I agree, that conventional set theory can't adress issues of how the
> sets arized. Therefor, just from the set theoretical statement 'self
> [re]producing is a subset of autopoiesis'
What is autopoiesis more then self-production?
you could not necessarily
> say that 'a self-producing system can arize without self-reproduction'.
> Intuitively, it could be possible that self-producing systems could only
> arize by a previous self-reproducing system...but the ability to replicate
> was lost in the re-producing process.
Don't forget Onars point that it can also arize top-down, but I
follow your argument.
>
> I do admit that a very importnat consideration in this discussion is the
> degree to which we can separate "what something is" from "how it
> got there". If they can't be separated, then to use conventional
> set-theoretical relations is indeed confounding.
Exactly my point.
Theories come and go, the frog stays [F. Jacob]
-------------------------------------------------------
|Hans-Cees Speel School of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and management
|Technical University Delft, Jaffalaan 5 2600 GA Delft PO Box 5015 The
Netherlands
|telephone +3115785776 telefax +3115783422 E-mail hanss@sepa.tudelft.nl
HTTP://www.sepa.tudelft.nl/~afd_ba/hanss.html featuring evolution and memetics!