Volume 6 · Number 3 · Pages 307–324
Autopoietic Systems: A Generalized Explanatory Approach – Part 1

Hugo Urrestarazu

Download the full text in
PDF (408 kB)

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment

Abstract

Context: This paper is intended for readers familiar with Humberto Maturana’s theory of autopoietic systems and with the still unresolved debate concerning the existence of non-biological autopoietic systems. Because the seminal work of the Chilean biologist has not yet been fully and correctly understood in other disciplines, I consider that it is necessary to offer a more generalized concept of the autopoietic system, derived by implication from Maturana’s grounding definition. Problem: The above-mentioned debate is rooted in a deficient application of some rigorous distinctions, definitions, and epistemological considerations introduced by Maturana when he coined the term “autopoiesis.” Some researchers think that social or economic organizations could be considered as autopoietic systems of a higher order because they appear to behave autonomously and be self-organized and self-producing. However, in practice some precise distinctions would need to be verified through observation in order to claim properly their autopoietic nature. These distinctions were defined by Varela, Maturana and Uribe in 1974 as a set of six decisional rules (“MV&U rules”) whereby an observer may possibly justify this stand. My aim is to pinpoint clearly the basic cognitive tasks that an observer should perform in order to ascertain such a claim. Method: I accomplish this with a thorough analysis of the entailments derived from each rule when applied to the most general case – when the observational domain where the system manifests itself is not specified. A bottom-up approach is used to avoid referring to “apparent autopoietic behavior” as a starting point distinction (top-down approach): the aim is to distinguish “autopoietic behavior” as an outcome of more basic distinctions, not as a premise for these. These may be used as abstract tools to facilitate a rigorous description of observations and lead to precise explanations of the emergence of complex self-generated dynamic systems. In theory, this conceptual frame is not limited to the macro-molecular domain and may therefore be applicable to non-biological systems. Results: According to MV&U rules, the most important distinctions are those that refer to intra-boundary phenomenology: this focus is necessary to explain how the key processes involved in the emergence of autopoiesis actually manifest themselves. These explanations are crucial to validating a claim about the “autopoietic nature” of an observed system. Implications: This work could help multidisciplinary researchers to apply properly the theory of autopoietic systems beyond the realm of biology and to settle ongoing debates. It could also help investigations related to the specifications of software simulation processes for modeling a minimal artificial autopoietic system. However, the rigorous focus on the role of intra-boundary phenomenology and self-production of components reveals that our chances of detecting “natural” meta-molecular autopoietic systems are scarce.

Key words: autopoiesis, self-production, autonomy, causation structure, artificial life, organizational knowledge

Citation

Urrestarazu H. (2011) Autopoietic systems: A generalized explanatory approach – part 1. Constructivist Foundations 6(3): 307–324. http://constructivist.info/6/3/307

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Urrestarazu H. (2011) Autopoietic Systems: A Generalized Explanatory Approach – Part 2
Urrestarazu H. (2012) Autopoietic Systems: A Generalized Explanatory Approach – Part 3: The Scale of Description Problem
Urrestarazu H. (2014) Social Autopoiesis?
Kauffman L. H. (2017) Mathematical Work of Francisco Varela
Cadenas H. & Arnold M. (2015) The Autopoiesis of Social Systems and its Criticisms

References

Beer S. (1972) The brain of the firm. The managerial cybernetics of organizations. Penguin Press, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Beer S. (1980) Foreword to autopoietic systems. In: Maturana H. R. & Varela F. J. Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Reidel, Boston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Beer S. (1995) Platform for change. Wiley, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dupuy J. P. (1982) Ordres et désordres. Editions du Seuil, Paris. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Luhmann N. (1986) The autopoiesis of social systems. In: Geyer F. & van der Zouwen J. (eds.) Sociocybernetic paradoxes. Sage, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Luminet J.-P. (2004) L’invention du big bang. Éditions du Seuil, Paris: 200–202. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. (2002) Autopoiesis, structural coupling and cognition: A history of these and other notions in the biology of cognition. Cybernetics & Human Knowing 9(3–4): 5–34. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Maturana H. R. (1988) Ontology of observing, The biological foundations of self consciousness and the physical domain of existence. In: Conference workbook: Texts in cybernetics. American Society For Cybernetics Conference, Felton CA. http://www.inteco.cl/biology/ontology/index.htm
Maturana H. R. (1988) Reality: The search for objectivity or the quest for a compelling argument. The Irish Journal of Psychology 9(1): 25–82. http://www.enolagaia.com/M88Reality.html
Maturana H. R. (1995) The nature of time. Instituto de Terapia Cognitiva, Santiago de Chile. Retrieved from http://www.inteco.cl/biology/nature.htm ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Robb F. (1989), Cybernetics and suprahuman autopoietic systems. Systems Practice 2(1): 47–74. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Schwember H. (1977) Cybernetics in government: Experience with new tools for management in Chile 1971–1973. In: Bossel H. (ed.) Concepts and tools of computer-assisted policy analysis. Volume 1. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel: 79–138. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. (1992) Autopoiesis and a biology of intentionality. In: McMullin B. & Murphy N. (eds.) Proceedings of the workshop “Autopoiesis and perception.” Dublin City University, Dublin. ftp://ftp.eeng.dcu.ie/pub/alife/bmcm9401/varela.pdf
Varela F. J. (1995) The emergent self. In: Brockman J. (ed.) The third culture: Beyond the scientific revolution. Simon & Schuster, New York: 209–222. Retrieved from http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/t-Ch.12.html ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J., Coutinho A., Dupire B. & Vaz N. (1988) Cognitive networks: Immune, neural, and otherwise. In: Perelson A. (ed.) Theoretical immunology Part II. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA: 359–375. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Varela F. J., Maturana H. R. & Uribe R. (1974) Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems, its characterization and a model. BioSystems 5: 187–196. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Zeleny M. & Hufford K. D. (1992) The application of autopoiesis in systems analysis: Are autopoietic systems also social systems? International Journal of General Systems 21: 145–160. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.