Evan Thompson
@evanthompson.bsky.social
4.9K followers 410 following 330 posts
Philosopher, writer.
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
Pinned
evanthompson.bsky.social
Since so many new people are arriving to bluesky these days, I'm just going to pin this to my profile for a while.
Reposted by Evan Thompson
marielgoddu.bsky.social
Grappling w my identity as a reluctant enactivist...
My favorite formulation of the approach so far is @xabibaran.bsky.social's "Autonomy and enactivism: Towards a theory of sensorimotor autonomous agency" (2017)

link.springer.com/content/pdf/...

IMO, it does three great things:
link.springer.com
evanthompson.bsky.social
So, even in the case of the ecosphere, where oceans, atmosphere, rocks, biota, etc., self-produce each other under closure (according to Earth Systems Science/Gaia Theory), it would still happen via molecular synthesis (not mechanical replacement)
evanthompson.bsky.social
We need to distinguish organization and structure. Chemical processes are nomologically necessary to instantiate structurally the autopoietic organization in the physical world, because without them there's no material transformation. But the organization as such is defined without reference to them
evanthompson.bsky.social
No, they didn't have different views on this matter. Mechanical replacement is neither necessary nor sufficient for autopoiesis. They agreed completely on this.
evanthompson.bsky.social
What you need is structural transformation+destruction (synthesis). The chemical domain is paradigmatic. Could it happen at a higher level? That's an open question but your system wouldn't qualify (but organs, multicellular organisms and maybe the whole ecosophere might). +
evanthompson.bsky.social
The simplest process that's minimally autopoietic would be an autocatalytic chemical reaction network that produces its own topological boundary (membrane).
evanthompson.bsky.social
That's not synthesis (chemical production/transformation + destruction). Synthesis = breaking + forming chemical bonds to create new molecular structures. (This could conceivably happen with different molecules than we know on Earth, so it is compositionally plastic.)
evanthompson.bsky.social
*or do they come from outside?*
evanthompson.bsky.social
Does the system generate its own replacement elements (as a cell does) or are they do come from outside? If the latter, then the system is allopoietic, not autopoietic. Some elements can be replaced from outside but only into a system that is already autopoietic in the case of cellular life.
evanthompson.bsky.social
No. Foreign elements can/must enter/exit (the system must be thermodynamically open) but it's definining organization (internal self-production network + self-produced topological boundary) must have closure.
evanthompson.bsky.social
See M&V, 78-9: "production" = "transformation & destruction" (instantiated in/by molecular synthesis) within the system's topological unity (instantiated in/by the membrane), which itself results from (auto-)transformation & destruction. Your example doesn't meet any of these requirements.
evanthompson.bsky.social
That's not the issue. A network/system is any definable set of processes but for them to be autopoietic they must be processes of production (molecular synthesis) - yours are not -that exhibit operational closure (every element is synthesized by another element in the system) - yours do not.
evanthompson.bsky.social
Here's the definition (as restated in a recent paper I did with Ezequiel Di Paolo and Randall Beer). Erik's robot is not a network of processes of production, let alone one that meets (i) and (ii).
evanthompson.bsky.social
Eric, your system is not anywhere near to being minimally autopoietic, according to the criteria set forth by Maturana and Varela and developed in the subsequent literature.