A newer definition of life revolves around the idea of autopoiesis. This idea was put forth by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela and emphasizes the peculiar closure of living systems, which are alive and maintain themselves metabolically whether they succeed in reproduction or not. Unlike machines, whose governing functions are embedded by human designers, organisms are self-governing. The autopoietic definition of life resembles the physiological definition but emphasizes life’s maintenance of its own identity, its informational closure, its cybernetic self-relatedness, and its ability to make more of itself. Autopoiesis refers to self-producing, self-maintaining, self-repairing, and self-relational aspects of living systems.
From Britannica
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So in other words autopoiesis is the way in which we dictate our lives? Such as having children, exercising, going to the doctor, and socializing? And for machines e.g. an automobile, it would be getting an oil change and new tires?
ReplyDeleteAnd for media, (i.e. the internet) increasing connection speeds and increasing the range of a connection? Is it safe to say autopoeisis relates to evolution?
ReplyDeleteFor me autopoiesis means selfcreate, self-educate, and self-organize oneself through three criterias:good, truth, and beauty. It is reprocessing and restructuring own feeling, thinking, talking, and doing toward love and freedom..
ReplyDeleteMILAN ZELENY professor at your university is one of the first scholar who did understand AUTOPOIESIS.
ReplyDeleteAutopoiesis is a description of living systems - no more - no less. It has no moral content and no advice to give about the behaviour any living being. AP systems discover for themselves,( yes by accident, trial and error and natural selection !) how best to define their boundaries and how to preserve their identity. What distinguishes them from allopoietic systems (such as machines) is their ability to create themselves from their own components.
ReplyDeleteSome believe that some social institutions exhibit AP features - they adopt arcane languages, form elite communities of people who speak in those tongues and share the values of their clique. Human lifetime fuels the conversations that create and sustain their lives. Examples are the professions, religions, the offices and ceremonials of state and so on. Most importantly, they serve only themselves - they need not serve any human need.
Some good points here. Do note that autopoiesis is closely connected to the concepts of systems, emergence, chaos, and complexity.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. I offer the suggestion that the autopoietic social systems I described are th emergent properties of the conversations of those using the arcane languages of their elite clique. These are systems that define themselves, but we cannot 'see' their boundaries, because they are constantly moving as all the conversations are being conducted. And if we cannot 'see' them, are we justified in saying that they are real'?
ReplyDelete