Cybernetics
& Human Knowing - Thesaurus pilot project
|
|||||||||||||
Autopoitic machine |
|||||||||||||
Definition |
|||||||||||||
| A
machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production,
transformation and destruction of components that produces the components which: i)
through their interactions and transformations regenerate and realize the network of
processes (relations) that produced them; and ii) constitute it as a concrete unity in the
space in which they exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as susch
a network. (Maturana and Varela, 1979) Autopoietic machines are the opposite of allopoietic machines, which are defined in terms of a purpose other than maintenance of their own organization. "A unity realized through a closed organization of production processes such that (a) The same organization of processes is generated through the interaction of their ownproducts (components) and (b) a topological boundary emerges as a result of the same constitutive process" (M. ZELENY, 1981, p. 6).
|
|||||||||||||
Principia Cybernetica (web) |
|||||||||||||
| A
machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production,
transformation and destruction of components that produces the components which: i)
through their interactions and transformations regenerate and realize the network of
processes (relations) that produced them; and ii) constitute it as a concrete unity in the
space in which they exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as susch
a network. (Maturana and Varela, 1979)
|
|||||||||||||
Encyclopedia Autopoietica |
|||||||||||||
| A machine / system which is a member of the class of autonomous systems and
which meets the requirement of being organized (defined as a unity) as a network of
processes of production, transformation and destruction of components that produces the
components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it as a concrete unity in the space in which they exist by specifying the topological domains of its realization as such a network. (Maturana & Varela, 1980, p. 135, cf. Varela, 1979, p. 13) Any unity meeting these specifications is an autopoietic machine / system, and any such autopoietic system realized in physical space is a living system. The particular configuration of a given unity -- its structure -- is not sufficient to define it as a unity. The key feature of a living system is maintenance of its organization, i.e, preservation of the relational network which defines it as a systemic unity. Phrased another way, "... autopoietic systems operate as homeostatic systems that have their own organization as the critical fundamental variable that they actively maintain constant." (Maturana, 1975, p. 318) Autopoietic machines are the opposite of allopoietic machines, which are defined in terms of a purpose other than maintenance of their own organization. However, an observer can ascribe allopoietic (allo-referred) status to an autopoietic machine within a subsuming context. Autopoietic machines may be described or manipulated as components of "... a larger system that defines the independent events which perturb them ...[and] can in fact be integrated into a larger system as a component allopoietic machine, without any alteration in its autopoietic organization." (Varela, 1979, p. 16)
|
|||||||||||||
International Encyclopedia of Systems & Cybernetics |
|||||||||||||
| [autopoietic system] " A unity realized through a closed organization of production processes such that (a) The same organization of processes is generated through the interaction of their ownproducts (components) and (b) a topological boundary emerges as a result of the same constitutive process" (M. ZELENY, 1981, p. 6). ZELENY comments his definition as follows: "...the organization of components and component-producing processes is maintained invariant through the interactions and flux of componets" (Ibid.). F. ROBB thus resumes MATURANA’s basic concept: "Autopoietic systems are characterized by circular relations which give rise to and maintain their autopoiesis. They define themselves, they are irreductible objects in nature, not defined by observers, they are self-producing and self-maintaining, they emerge from instabilities, and they have properties not possessed by their components" (1990, p. 394). The comment about "irreductible objects of nature" is intriguing: it could possibly be considered as a base for a systemic ontology. However, when H. MATURANA and F. VARELA write: "Living systems, as physical autopoietic machines, are purposeless systems" (1980, p. 86), one wonders if there may be a danger that some could interpret autopoietic machines as solipsistic (or autistic!) machines. Seemingly, an autopoietic observer, for instance, must, to begin with, construct his/her internal organizational closure, even if this process begins before birth, in the guise of physiological organizational closure through genetic and generative heredity. As conjectured by ZELENY, any autopoietic system would need to be a society, whether of cells in a living system, ants in a anthill, neurons in the brain, human beings in an organization, and even possibly in a near future elemental robots in systems of distributed artificial intelligence. It has also be argued, by F. ROBB, that: "... there are strong reasons to believe that ever-higher order social processes can emerge" (1990, p. 394). Biotopes as well may be considered up to a point as autopoietic systems, when not seriously disturbed by outside perturbations.
|
|||||||||||||
