Re: [Fis] Information, autopoiesis, life and semiosis (Part I)

I think Stan has made an important point here.
I have also criticized it in What is Autonomy, at
http://www.nu.ac.za/undphil/collier/papers/What%20is%20Autonomy.pdf.
In addition to objections similar to Kampis and Swenson, I note genetic
and
logical circularities. Robert Rosen's closure to efficient causation has
the
same set of problems.

Typical problem: Maturana defines the environment as anything an
organism
could interact with, given it internal organization. This includes both
too much
and too little. As I argue in Dealing with the Unexpected, also on my
web
site, autonomous dynamical organization can reorganize under the
influence
of external influences of a sort that it has no basis for in its current
organization.
This is typical of living systems, and I also use it to explain Piaget's
account of
accommodation and assimilation. On the two wide side, the real nature of
the environment matter in explanation, especially since organisms store
information in their environment (niche construction). Mere constructive
possibilities
based on internal organization are, as Stan suggests, not realistic.

I think that autopoiesis is a dead end, although it was a good idea at
the time.
Let's move on, and leave it behind. It also gives a very phony idea of
the nature of
meaning, for the same reasons. The term is loaded with unfortunate
connotations.

John

Professor John Collier
Philosophy, University of Natal
Durban 4041 South Africa
T: +27 (31) 260 3248 / 260 2292
F: +27 (31) 260 3031
email: collierj@nu.ac.za
http://nu.ac.za/undphil/collier
>>> "Stanley N. Salthe" <ssalthe@binghamton.edu> 01/24/04 00:47 AM >>>
In response to Pedro's posting below: Note that autopoiesis has been
criticized in two ways:
(1) By George Kampis and Vili Csanyi: It is purely homeostatic, and
does
not take into account change at all. They replaced it with
"autogenesis"
(2) By Rod Swenson: It is not connected in any realistic way to the
actual
world. He replaced it with "autocatakinesis".
(3) Koichiro and I have noted that autopoiesis is, from our, internalist
point of view, an early attempt at internalism, where, in fact,
connections
to the rest of the world are not detected as such.

STAN

> Dear Soeren,
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Many thanks for the discussion document. Indeed you have produced a
very
>vast outlook of subjects related with Autopoiesis and Meaning.
>
> In this preliminary comment, let me leave aside most of the 'tree' of
>interrelated subjects and concentrate on just a particular 'branch' (if
I
>am capable!). My very simple question-problem would be about the extent
to
>which the Autopiesis concept would 'pass' today an in-depth examination
on
>its biomolecular validity.
>
> I mean, more than 30 years have elapsed since Maturana and Varela
>proposed it, after a very interesting criticism by the former on the
>representationalist approach to neuroscience. Thereafter they turned to
>the nascent molecular biology of the cell in order to produce a unified
>view of biological cognition, amplifying and generalizing their neural
>dissidence, so to speak. With virtues and defects already pointed out
in
>that time, their heterodox views got better spread and recognition than
>germane concepts proposed close by: self-transcendence, auto-genesis,
>auto-catakinesis...
>
> In the intervening decades, molecular biology has been caught by a
>fantastic 'information revolution' and almost everything has changed.
Now
>we have a spray of brand new bioinformatic disciplines, including
>genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and 'signaling science'. In the
>simplest cells, we have new knowledge for instance about the massive
>extension of 'horizontal gene transfer' (it has been called the
'Internet'
>of prokaryots: plasmids, viruses, phages, transposons...), or about the
>fascinating variety of colonies and 'multicellularity' mechanisms (eg,
>anti-apoptotic compounds supporting coloniality and sociality in
>microbes), or about the SOS systems in charge of producing massive
>mutational phenomena, or the vastness and complexity of protein
>degradation.... all these singular elements, and quite many others
>particularly from signaling science and protein degradation fields,
>suggest (at least) an initial revision of the 'organizational closure'
>implied by the autopoietic approach.
>
> Perhaps with more difficult grounds, I also think that 'signaling
>science' offer new cues for (rather than following strictly with the
>'structural coupling' notion) advancing a direct discussion on
'meaning'
>at the cellular level. In any case, I agree that right now most of that
>discussion cannot be advanced too far. Even if we could produce
>interesting theoretical approaches to the outside or 'message' part of
>communication (eg, Shannonian, or partitional) we have no idea on how
to
>interrelate it with the advancement of a life cycle. It is in this
context
>where I speculate that Michael Leyton's approach to a 'generative
>processes' grammar could be fundamental. But connecting group theory
with
>molecular biology looks daunting (could some other new mathematical
stuff
>bring some help---Jerry?)
>
> No doubt that the current session was addressed for freely speculating
>with the most philosophical and general ideas, as Soeren as done.
>However, if some branch of it (or 'tangent' as Ted's so aptly put last
>year) produces a convergence upon the natural science stuff already
>discussed at fis (molecular recognition, entropy, symmetry, partitions,
>process grammar, information genera, etc.) we can have an even more
>interesting result for most of us.
>
> best regards
>
> Pedro
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Please find our disclaimer at http://www.disclaimer.nu.ac.za
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<<<gwavasig>>>>
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis
Received on Sat Jan 24 02:21:42 2004