>
>>*) what's the relation between dissipative and self-producing?
>
>They resemble each other greatly. Both are far from equilibrium systems.
Both
>have an overall boundary/unity of some sort created by its
>far-from-equilibrium.
Do you mean thermodynamic equilibrium?
>The qualitative difference between the two is the following:
>
>
>1. Autopoiesis is organizationally closed while dissipative structure is
>organizationally open.
What do you mean by organizationally closed? I do not think you mean that an
autopoietic system is a closed system physically. Yet your comments below
suggest/imply this.
>
>2. The unity of autopoiesis is defined by its own self-production while the
> unity
>of dissipative structure is defined by its far-from-equilibrium.
Physically and thermodynamically, any self-reinforcing system will be
far-from-equilibrium.
>
>3. In the dissipative structure energy flow through the system is solely
>determined by external variables. (analogous to cold-bloodedness) In
>autopoiesis
>the energy flow through the system is homeostatically controlled by the
>autopoietic system. (analogic to warm-bloodedness) That is, if you turn off
>the
>energy tap the dissipative systems will simply disintegrate while the
>autopoietic system would try to counteract this. Autopoietic Death could
>therefore be seen as an organisms "allergic" reaction to disintegration.
This seems contrary to what I have understood to be antientropic properties
of dissipative systems- precisely their resistance to
thermal/organizational/informational dissipation.
>
>4. Autopoiesis is a super-efficient mode of organization. It has no lacks
and
>no
>surplus, it is in complete balance. Therefore it does not experience time.
This does not sound like any kind of system that _exists in real time_. What
examples do you have in mind here? No living system operates without a
constant demand for energy; and (as far as we know) genetic sequences are
extraordinarily repetitive and many may be meaningless to the survival of the
organism. Speaking for myself, I must admit to carrying a little surplus...
>All
>its resources are consumed in its self-production. In other words, we may
>equate
>organizational closure with balance and organizational openness with
>unbalance.
What makes an autopoietic system different from a living system, then? I
can't say that activities of all living systems are oriented toward
self-production. At least that's my wife's opinion about the internet...
>
>
>Quantitative differences:
>
>1. A dissipative structure is much, much more robust than an autopoietic
>system.
>A dissipative structure can actually go completely out of existence and
still
>be
>able to re-emerge. An autopoietic system, however, is gone for good when
>dead.
>It cannot spontaniously reappear as easily as dissipative structures.
First, what do you mean by 're-emerge' if something is 'completely out of
existence'? Please give an example. It seems a logical impossibility.
Second, how could an autopoietic system come to exist in the first place if
it is 'gone for good when dead'? Was it assembled from inert parts? We then
have a problem regarding what it becomes when 'dead'- what property did it
lose when it 'died'? For living systems, the organism ceases to resist
entropic dissolution when the metabolic system is no longer capable of
reinforcing its structure.
>
>
>>Are they
>>disjoint?
>
>
>Yes, they are. Both are independent emergent levels of organization.
>Autopoiesis
>just happens to be a natural extension of the dissipative.
>
>
>