"Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
news:cf9lpf$1m47$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> in article cf693c$gu4$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 8/8/04 3:22 PM:
>
> > "Guy Hoelzer"  wrote in message
> > news:cf0iaq$1nf6$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org...
> >> in article cev3s2$17fm$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org, Perplexed in Peoria at
> >> jimmenegay{at}sbcglobal.net wrote on 8/5/04 10:10 PM:
> >>> I'm not sure that
> >>> Maturana and Varella intended "autopoietic" to include
> >>> such simple systems as Prigogine's dissipative structures.
> >>
> >> Can you specify what it is that Benard cells or a BZ reaction lack that
> >> exclude them from your list of "autopoietic" systems?
> >
> > Well, the main things missing seem to be a notion of component parts,
> > plus the boundary of a dissipative structure is far too nebulous
> > and/or externally imposed.
>
> I think that the component parts are clearly the molecules in the liquid.
> Also, I disagree that "the boundary of a dissipative structure is far too
> nebulous and/or externally imposed", but this is a tough one to
argue about.
> If you think that you can articulate a good argument for the requisite
> boundary crispness of an autopoietic I would love to see it.

The URL that I reference below articulates it for me.  It says, almost in
so many words, that the boundary has to be constructed of parts
"manufactured"
by the autopoietic system.  The boundary is not something imposed by the
observer or by the environment.  Two neighboring autopoietic systems do
not share a boundary.  Each has its own boundary, which it constructs itself.
Clearly, Benard cells do not have this characteristic.  And I have no idea
what you think the boundary of an autopoietic BZ system might be.

> > Here is a checklist of features that must be present for a system to
> > be called autopoietic:
> > http://www.enolagaia.com/Checklist.html
> > I think you will agree that M&V did not intend to include Benard and
> > BZ systems under their umbrella.
>
> Thanks for the URL.  I don't see anything in the list that would exclude
> Benard and BZ systems from being autopoietic, but clearly the author did not
> have them in mind when writing criteria 4-6.  Because I found nothing to
> exclude them, I continue to accept them as autopoietic.

Somehow this does not surprise me.  You seem to have a habit of construing
all concepts to be as inclusive as possible, and most concepts as more
inclusive yet.  You might benefit from reading some of George Orwell's
essays on language and meaning.

Perhaps you should explain how you conceive of BZ and Benard making it past
criterion #4.  It almost sounds as if you are saying that criteria 4-6
are not applicable.  I would have probably excluded these two kinds of systems
as autopoietic back at #1 or #2, but even if I hadn't, I would certainly
have admitted defeat when I hit #4.
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 8/10/04 5:34:32 PM