Re: self-producing

Bruce Edmonds (B.Edmonds@MMU.AC.UK)
Fri, 25 Aug 1995 13:19:16 GMT


forward to pcp

I lost this message before I posted the other ones today, but this
one seems to be the best to follow., so here I go...

> self-reproducing is a subset of self-producing (autopoiesis)
> self-reproducing is a subset of replicating
> self-producing is a subset of self-organized
> dissipative structures is a subset of the self-organized
> autopoiesis (self-production) is a subset of dissipative structures.

Hans-Cees writes:
> > I would however propose not to use reproduction, but replication, because
> > reproduction and self-reproduction are difficult to separate. This is
> > because what people call reproduction in everyday language [in
> > biology I must admit] is what we see here as self-reproduction.
>
> I agree...maybe we should use the word "replication" to mean the event of
> something somehow making a copy of itself. And use the term "self-
> reproduction" (as being synonymous with the biologically established word
> "reproduction" ) for those systems that are self-producing.

No No. Replication is simply to copy. So repliction means that a copy
is made....BUT NOT NECESSARILY BY THE REPLICATED THING ITSSELVE .
This is important, since this last line is the way it is viewed in
biology, and I am not to keen to shift the meaning of a word that is
already used often in this way. I agree on self-reproducting as the
word for reproduction in biology. But be careful, because
reproduction is not replication stricly; it can involve shuffling from
two organisms.

> I wrote:
> > > SELF-REFERENTIAL - its meaning is captured in the following lines...
> > > The definition of something has itself in the definition.
> > > Something must already be produced in order for it to self-produce
> > > Something must already have happened before in order for it to happen
> > > again...
>
> Hans-Cees writes:
> > I do not understand this:-(
>
> Perhaps John Minger said it better (as in Onars post)
>
> >Self-referential Symbolic reference to "This is a sentence,"
> > self (pictorial or Escher's "Drawing
Hands,"
> > linguistic) Magritte's "The Treason
> > of Images"
>
> I wrote:
> > > self-reproducing is a subset of self-producing.
> > > self-reproducing is a subset of replicating
> > > self-producing is a subset of self-organized
>
> Hans-Cees writes:
> > Can you explain this? Why not the other way around?
>
> Self-reproducing as a subset of self-producing: I can imagine a system that
> somehow came into existence that has the capability to self-produce (make
> or replenish its own material makeup)...It would have a certain life-time,
> then go out of existence leaving no prodigy. We also have plenty of
> examples of self-producing systems that also have the capacity to make
> autonomous copies of themselves (this provides a mechanism for the
> variation among the species). The self-producing set would include as
> subsets, the "self-producers without reproduction capability" and the "self-
> producers with reproduction capability". So therefor, self-reproducing is a
> subset of self-producing.

But see my previous post, I think that there are systems that
selfreproduce, but not self-produce. If this is true, the
set-statement is wrong [or isn't it?]

>
> Self-reproducing as a subset of replicating: I can imagine a case were a non-
> self-producing system is able to make another copy of itself.

This hangs on your definition as replicating necessarily involving
replication by the system itsselve, so I think you have to reconsider
this.

(Rosen claims a
> problem with the Von Neuman universal constructor, but I admit I dont
> fully understand his argument so until I do, I have to consider it possible).
> Im imagining that a robot is grabbing parts from a bin according to a certain
> algorithm and constructs another physical copy of itself, then downloads its
> software so the copy can behave as the original robot. Now, we also have
> examples of self-producing systems that can make copies of themselves
> (replicate) like cells. The replicating systems can then be partitioned into
> two subsets: the "replicating systems that arent self-producing" and the
> "replicating systems that are self producing". Therefor, self-reproducing is
a
> subset of replicating

What is then the difference between replicating and self-reproducing?

>
> self-producing as a subset of self-organized: I can imagine a self-organized
> system that is not self-producing. Take for instance, Onars example of a
> crystal or snowflake (for an equilibrium structural self-organizing system).
> These are definitely not self-producing...there is no continual material flow-
> through for instance). I can also imagine a self-organized system that has
the
> necessary characteristics to be considered self-producing.

I* agree

And also, a key
> point, is that I cant imagine a self-producing system that is not self-
> organized (allowing for some stable form that allows the self-producing
> process to exist). Therefor, as subsets of self-organizing systems would be
> "those that are not self-producing" and "those that are self-producing". I
> may add that Onar would probably augment this with equilibrium and
> dissipative structures). Therefor, self-producing is a subset of self-
> organized

I agree

>
> And Id like to reitterate Dons objection and Onars clearification that a
> "dissipative strucure" isnt just somehting that dissipates. The term is
> reserved for something more special...things that are dissipative and self-
> organized.

I agree

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!