[Fis] Current remarks/Autopoiesis (& KARL SESSION)

[joe.brenner at bluewin.ch]

Off-line
Thank you, at least by implication.
Best, 
Joe 

Envoyé avec l’application blue News & E-Mail

Le 19 décembre 2025 à 07:51, Mark Johnson <johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com> a écrit
>Dear all
>
>There may be a role for a conceptual framework for thinking through the
>dynamics of biological coordination and communication - it certainly
>has
>inspired some fascinating work. But doesn't Pedro's critique of
>Autopoietic
>theory as being irrelevant to actual scientific practice and
>understanding
>in biology still stand?
>
>It's worth asking what's missing. To put it bluntly, we don't seem to
>have
>got anywhere closer to biology's "Mendeleev moment" - that inflection
>point
>where chemistry was furnished with a conceptual framework that made
>testable and reliable prediction possible.
>
>Biology's Mendeleev moment won't necessarily look like a periodic table
>-
>but how do we get there from here? If autopoiesis doesn't take us
>there,
>what might?
>
>Best wishes
>
>Mark
>
>
>
>Dr. Mark William Johnson
>Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health
>University of Manchester
>
>Department of Eye and Vision Science (honorary)
>University of Liverpool
>Phone: 07786 064505
>Email: johnsonmwj1 at gmail.com
>Blog:
>https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQ-kBREmQ$
>
>
>On Wed, 17 Dec 2025, 14:09 Stuart Kauffman, <stukauffman at gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hello to All. Steve and Gordana, warmest thanks. These are basic
>issues
>> and I am glad we are discussing them.  You all may be interested in
>the
>> fact that co-evolving Kantian Wholes can create new niches for one
>another.
>> This is the creation of novel information. Andrea Roli, Sudip Patra
>and I
>> have just published our first paper on this in J. Roy. Soc.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Stu
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2025, at 4:55 AM, Steve Watson <sw10014 at cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Thank you for this exceptionally rich exchange. I would like to offer
>a
>> clarifying perspective that may help situate the apparent
>disagreements,
>> not as competing claims about facts or mechanisms, but as differences
>in
>> observational level and explanatory intent.
>>
>> It seems to me that autopoiesis, as articulated by Maturana and
>Varela, is
>> often evaluated as if it were meant to function as a *first-order
>> biological mechanism*—that is, as a molecular or developmental
>> explanation comparable to contemporary work in biochemistry,
>genetics, or
>> systems biology. When judged on those terms, many of the critiques
>raised
>> here are entirely justified. Autopoiesis, taken literally, does not
>specify
>> molecular pathways, does not generate falsifiable predictions in the
>usual
>> experimental sense, and does not by itself account for the concrete
>> dynamics of metabolism, gravity, or development.
>>
>> However, I would suggest that this mode of evaluation risks
>misplacing the
>> theory’s primary function. Autopoiesis was never meant to replace
>> mechanistic explanation. Rather, it operates at a second-order level,
>as a
>> theory of *organization*: it specifies what must be the case for a
>> collection of processes to count as a living system at all. In other
>words,
>> it does not explain *how* a system works but clarifies *what kind of
>> unity* is being explained when we say that a system works, persists,
>or
>> exists as a self.
>>
>> From this perspective, recent work on collectively autocatalytic
>systems,
>> and especially Stuart’s articulation of catalytic plus constraint
>closure,
>> does not undermine autopoiesis but gives it material depth.
>Constraint
>> closure makes explicit something that was only implicit in early
>> autopoietic formulations: that thermodynamic work, boundary
>conditions, and
>> material embodiment are not external supports of organization but are
>> recursively produced by the system itself. A system that does work to
>> construct the constraints that make further work possible
>exemplifies—at a
>> molecular level—the very organizational closure autopoiesis was
>designed to
>> characterize.
>>
>> Seen this way, catalytic and constraint closure can be understood as
>a
>> concrete instantiation of organizational closure, not as an
>alternative to
>> it. They show how a system can literally build the conditions of its
>own
>> persistence, thereby grounding autopoietic claims in experimentally
>> accessible chemistry. Importantly, this also clarifies why the
>> hardware/software distinction collapses in such systems. There is no
>> external “program” directing the process; the organization that
>performs
>> the work is itself the product of that work. This resonates strongly
>with
>> Kampis’ account of self-modifying systems, where hardware and
>software
>> co-emerge through recursive interaction.
>>
>> This also reframes the discussion of heredity. If systems with
>catalytic
>> and constraint closure can reconstruct themselves without relying on
>> symbolic templates, then heredity may not be exhausted by
>sequence-based
>> information alone. Organizational continuity itself may function as a
>> carrier of evolutionary variability. That possibility does not
>contradict
>> molecular genetics, but it expands the conceptual space in which
>heredity,
>> agency, and evolution can be understood.
>>
>> Finally, I think this distinction helps clarify the recurring concern
>> about testability. Autopoiesis is not directly testable in the way a
>> biochemical pathway is testable, because it is not a hypothesis about
>> particular processes. It is a theory of system identity—a framework
>that
>> determines when it even makes sense to speak of a mechanism as
>belonging to
>> a living system rather than to a mere aggregate of reactions. In that
>> sense, it plays a role closer to thermodynamic principles or
>organizational
>> invariants than to empirical models. Its value lies not in
>prediction, but
>> in *constraining what counts as an adequate explanation of life[1]*.
>>
>> If this framing is accepted, then the most productive question may
>not be
>> whether autopoiesis should be retained or discarded, but how
>contemporary
>> work on constraint closure, autocatalytic sets, and embodied
>thermodynamic
>> organization sharpens, revises, or limits the domain of validity of
>> autopoietic theory. In that dialogue, molecular detail and
>organizational
>> theory are not rivals but mutually illuminating.
>>
>> With best regards,
>> Steve
>>
>> [1] Autopoiesis does not define life exhaustively, nor are all
>autopoietic
>> systems living; rather, it constrains what counts as an adequate
>> explanation of living systems by specifying the organizational
>conditions
>> under which mechanisms belong to a self-maintaining unity.
>>
>>
>> *From: *Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic <gordana.dodig-crnkovic at mdu.se>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 20:31
>> *To: *Stuart Kauffman <stukauffman at gmail.com>, Louis Kauffman <
>> loukau at gmail.com>, Andrea Roli <andrea.roli at unibo.it>
>> *Cc: *JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu>, "Pedro C. Marijuán" <
>> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
><joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>,
>> Steve Watson <sw10014 at cam.ac.uk>, fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] Current remarks/Autopoiesis (& KARL SESSION)
>>
>> Dear Stu,
>>
>> Many thanks for sharing this. I find your argument genuinely
>important.
>>
>> Your articulation of catalytic *and* constraint closure, and
>especially
>> the point that such systems do thermodynamic work to construct
>specifically
>> themselves, captures essential insight that is missed by
>automata-based
>> models of self-reproduction.
>> As you note, the von Neumann U + Program framework, powerful as it is
>for
>> machines, relies on critical simplifications,
>> especially the hardware/software separation and fixed syntactic
>> descriptions that are not valid for living systems.
>>
>> Your insight about computation is very central. If computation is to
>be
>> relevant for life, it must be able to describe self-generating,
>> self-modifying systems, where the organization that performs
>(natural)
>> computation is itself produced and maintained by the dynamics.
>>
>> This aligns with George Kampis’ notion of self-modifying, component
>> systems. As he put it:
>>
>> “A component system is a computer which, when executing its
>operations
>> (software) builds a new hardware… [w]e have a computer that re-wires
>itself
>> in a hardware–software interplay: the hardware defines the software
>and the
>> software defines new hardware. Then the circle starts again.”
>> (Kampis, *Self-Modifying Systems in Biology and Cognitive Science*,
>p.
>> 223)
>>
>> Many thanks for continuing and developing this line of thought that
>has
>> long been important. These ideas are crucial for understanding life,
>> and clarifying the limits of the von Neumann approach to agency.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Gordana
>>
>> P.S. Kampis’ book is available here:
>>
>*https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://hps.elte.hu/*gk/Books/SMSCB_Kampis.pdf__;fg!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQXevJX7o$
>
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://hps.elte.hu/*gk/Books/SMSCB_Kampis.pdf__;fg!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VqmJIrOhFNM6_NbAxsuygvkjC5mDceDdFDXr3xtuuU7DRrr6UwYkG1hOLGwSv7Z9OL_j0c0o94jO_FSUb9fj_VY$>*
>>
>> My position on physical origins of memory, anticipation, and top-down
>> causation is developed here:
>> Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2026) *Anticipation, Memory, and Top-Down
>Causation
>> in Living Systems*, BioSystems, 259, 105640.
>>
>*https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2025.105640__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQiWTTBlI$
>
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystems.2025.105640__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!VqmJIrOhFNM6_NbAxsuygvkjC5mDceDdFDXr3xtuuU7DRrr6UwYkG1hOLGwSv7Z9OL_j0c0o94jO_FSUlwCWIl4$>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From: *Fis <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es> on behalf of Stuart
>Kauffman <
>> stukauffman at gmail.com>
>> *Date: *Tuesday, 16 December 2025 at 15:12
>> *To: *Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com>, "stukauffman at gmail.com" <
>> stukauffman at gmail.com>, Andrea Roli <andrea.roli at unibo.it>
>> *Cc: *JOHN TORDAY <jtorday at ucla.edu>, ""Pedro C. Marijuán"" <
>> pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>, "joe.brenner at bluewin.ch" <
>> joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>, Steve Watson <sw10014 at cam.ac.uk>, fis <
>> fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> *Subject: *Re: [Fis] Current remarks/Autopoiesis (& KARL SESSION)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi All,
>> I hope I may report, perhaps again, that self reproducing molecular
>> systems already exist.
>> These are autopoetic collectively autocatalyic sets of peptides, of
>RNA,
>> and of DNA. Look up Gonen Ashkenasy re a 9 peptide collectively
>> autocatalytic set. In addition, Gonen’s set achieves the newly
>recognized
>> property of “Catalytic plus Constraint Closure”.
>> ”Catalytic Closure” means that the production of a second copy of
>each of
>> the 9 peptides is catalyzed by at least one of the peptides in the
>set.
>> This is a familiar Idea.
>> The more radical ideas is this: "Constraint Closure”. Thermodynamic
>work
>> is the constrained release of energy into a few degrees of freedom.
>> Think cannon, cannon ball and powder. The cannon is the constraint or
>> boundary condition.
>> So: No Constraint, no Work. But it took work to construct the Cannon
>> boundary condition! Newton does not tell us where the boundary
>conditions
>> come from.
>>
>>
>> Mael Montevil and Mateo Mossio introduced the idea of Constraint
>Closure
>> in 2015. Here a set of constraints mutually *depend *upon one
>another.
>> Recently I have refined this idea to require that in a constraint
>closed
>> system, the boundary condition constraints do the thermodynamic work
>to
>> construct one another.
>>
>>
>> For example, consider three non equilibrium processes, 1,2,3 and
>three
>> constraints, A, B,C.
>> Let A constrain the release of energy in process 1 to construct a B.
>> Let B constrain the release of energy in process 2 to construct a C.
>> Let C constrain the release of energy in process 3 to construct an A.
>> This is a new union of flow processes and constraints on flow
>processes.
>> *The constraints on the flow process construct the same constraints.*
>>
>>
>> *This constraint closed system does thermodynamic work to construct
>> specifically itself.*
>> *Gonen’s 9 peptide system achieves catalytic and constraint closure.*
>> *Peptide 1 binds the two half fragments of peptide 2, hence lowers
>the
>> activation barrier for the ligation reaction.*
>> *Energy is released into a few degrees of freedom and thermodynamic
>work
>> is done to construct the new peptide bond between the two half
>fragments.*
>> *Once ligated, the two half fragments ARE a second copy of peptide
>2.*
>> *And so on around the cycle of 9 peptides.*
>> *Thus the system harnesses energy to construct specifically itself.*
>>
>>
>> This is a new union of matter and energy and process.
>> I think this is Bergon’s Elan Vital, rendered entirely non
>mysterious. Lou
>> this does what you ask for below.
>>
>>
>> Another very interesting point. *The distinction between hardware and
>> software vanishes.*
>> This is fundamentally different from von Neumann’s "self reproducing
>> machine" with U, the Universal constructor, and The Program - welded
>> girders - that instruct U, to construct a second U, then The physical
>> Program is copied and the copy is inserted in the new U. Hence "U
>plusThe
>> Program" can produce a new "U and Program".
>>
>>
>> In Gonen’s system, there is no "U and The Program". Gonen’s system
>> constructs specifically itself. This seems fundamental.
>> The software hardware distinction is not present. There is no The
>Program
>> in Gonen’s set.
>>
>>
>> Another deep point. We think of template replicating DNA or RNA as a
>> molecular storage of heritable information. It is.
>> But Gonen’s set, with catalytic and constraint closure is a different
>> molecular mechanism that specifically constructs itself,
>> so is an entirely different carrier of heritable molecular
>variability in
>> evolution.
>> Heritable variation can occur by exchange of “irreducible
>autocatalytic
>> sets”. We have not seen this before.
>>
>>
>> I am fascinated by the idea of a second molecular heritable system is
>in
>> life.
>> Joana Xavier has found small molecule collectively autocatalytic sets
>in
>> all 6700 prokaryotes.
>> These SMCAS (also called RAFS) are themselves Catalytic and
>Constraint
>> closed systems.
>> How much of the stability of evolution is due to these rather than
>DNA
>> sequence stability?
>>
>>
>> Among the issues to think about: Syntactic symbols on a computer do
>not
>> have the relevant physically CAUSAL Properties.
>> In Gonen’s set, molecular embodiment is necessary.
>>
>>
>> This material is now in Press, Oxford UP, “Origins: Cosmos, Life,
>Mind”,
>> by myself, due out April 2026, and recently published with Andrea
>Roli:
>>
>>
>> Kauffman, S., and Roli, A. Is the emergence of life and agency
>expected?
>> (2025), Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 380: 20240283.
>*https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0283__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQO7el5L8$
>
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2024.0283__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!Qc3OKFroL6YCvAQbJBtZwy2oDbBLth7PWz__OCwH9KR57-cY4jj9nV9rSdyFW9ctPn0qhBarWyJaoIhee_aLKZg$>*
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this is useful.
>>
>>
>> Stu
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2025, at 1:31 AM, Louis Kauffman <loukau at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear John,
>> I am sure that this will be my last legal communication this week.
>> As you know, I am an advocate of the use of abstractions or patterns
>that
>> can apply to multiple situations. You seem to always advocate that
>any
>> given idea must be instantiated and explained by some specific
>physical
>> circumstance. That is so alien to my way of thinking that I actually
>find
>> it interesting. But you could consider what I say interesting to you.
>I say
>> that we can consider a process whereby a structure (and we as
>observers
>> have to decide how that structure is to be detected or observed) is
>> maintained even though the component parts of the structure are seen
>to
>> change over time. Indeed we are thinking of the structure itself as
>showing
>> how it uses material from its environment to form itself and so
>continue
>> its form. Such a process is called autopoeitic. But there are many
>examples
>> of such structures, with different kinds of physical substrates. The
>place
>> where your way of thinking comes in is when I have a more grandiose
>thought
>> that perhaps what we call the Universe is autopoeitic. But then the
>> Universe should be its own environment! I do not believe in closed
>system
>> autopoeisis. So I correspondingly find that I do not believe in a
>closed
>> universe.
>> If you ever imagine that you have defined the Universe (Wolfram once
>said
>> he thought he could do it in a thousand lines of code) you will find
>that
>> it has escaped your definition. For me that is quite satisfying.
>> Best,
>> Lou
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 15, 2025, at 6:25 AM, JOHN TORDAY <*jtorday at ucla.edu
>> <jtorday at ucla.edu>*> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dear Lou et al, with regard to MUV, they address the subject of
>> 'autopoiesis' or self-referential self-organization without a
>mechanism
>> that would allow testing/refuting. With all due respect to them, they
>were
>> working in the pre-molecular biology world, to which I have access
>now. But
>> given all of that, I am of the opinion that autopoiesis is synonymous
>with
>> homeostasis, the latter seen as an *exaptation* (Gould and Vrba's
>term
>> for a trait that reference some earlier adaptive strategy from the
>past).
>> In the case of homeostasis, the exaptation refers to the chemical
>> 'balancing' of hydrogen and helium reacting iteratively to form the
>stars
>> (Stellar Nucleosynthesis, Hoyle, 1946), the byproducts of which were
>the
>> elements in their exact order of their atomic masses from 1 to 94 as
>the
>> 'logic' of the Cosmos. Fast forward 10 billion years, and life is
>evolving
>> due to symbiogenic (Sagan, 1967) assimilation of the elements in
>order to
>> maintain their homeostatic balance in an ever-changing
>> environment, assimilating the logic of the Cosmos......and this is
>the
>> foundation for both local and non-local consciousness. In their book
>> "Autopoiesis and Cognition" M and V describe what I am offering a
>> mechanistic explanation for which IS TESTABLE in the sense that if
>you
>> deprive cells of the force of gravity they devolve.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 1:22 AM Louis Kauffman <*loukau at gmail.com
>> <loukau at gmail.com>*> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Folks,
>> I maintain that there still continues a confusion about the aim of
>the
>> cybernetic work of Maturana,Uribe and Varela, particularly if the
>> criticisms are in the form of
>> the clear need for detailed understanding of just how life processes
>work.
>> Who can deny that? MUV point out that a living organism consists in
>an
>> organization that keeps replenishing its materiality while at the
>same time
>> maintaining its organization. They further raise the question about
>how
>> such organization can arise in the first place, giving a very
>elementary
>> example of such an emergence. In this way they provide a framework
>for
>> thinking about organization and process that is more general than
>biology
>> and that lets one think about these matters without dogma. In order
>to do
>> so, one must avoid making dogma out of MUV and now we arrive at the
>> problem. The problem, as I see it, is in academic discussion -- which
>> normally depends on making references to previously published work,
>each
>> such work being regarded as some kind of steppingstone to the
>building of
>> an imagined edifice of thought. But you just cannot maintain that
>sort of
>> structure unless you have the kind of foundational criticism as
>occurs in
>> some parts of science such as in physics an mathematics but is
>> unfortunately not present elsewhere. One can eventually discard the
>shells
>> of useless thought (like phlogiston). MUV is not providing us with a
>> possible phlogiston. They are providing us with general principles of
>> organization for structures that persist in time. It is not time yet
>to
>> discard these ideas.
>> Best,
>> Lou
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2025 at 3:39 PM Pedro C. Marijuán
><*pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com
>> <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>*> wrote:
>>
>> Dear List,
>>
>>
>> Let me start by recognizing Kate Peil and Lou Kauffman for their work
>in
>> the session on Karl's legacy. Kate has written a thoughtful summary
>of
>> Karl's main views that can be downloaded from fis web pages, at:
>*https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://fis.sciforum.net/resources/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQhpSeWuA$
>
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/fis.sciforum.net/resources/__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XnqxvPkY3DZ0qm24FtSwHBLsPRrbl4YHc1CDT3u8HMVP2dum7rgwsbIydFJ0LNUBEpVZvOWMkfhlpVK3$>
>> * Have a glance, "merece la pena" as we say in Spanish. Also, the
>session
>> was recorded and will appear in IAIS Dialogs:
>*https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.youtube.com/@IAISDIALOGUES__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQlu8tm0w$
>
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.youtube.com/@IAISDIALOGUES__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XnqxvPkY3DZ0qm24FtSwHBLsPRrbl4YHc1CDT3u8HMVP2dum7rgwsbIydFJ0LNUBEpVZvOWMkXRQTcUy$>*
>>
>>
>> About AP, please note that it was proposed as a pandisciplinary or
>> metatheory of cognition for the whole living. Interesting in the 70s
>in
>> spite of its evident lack of biological substance, but 50 years ago
>the
>> accumulation of anomalies (I telegraphed a few of them) have made its
>> maintenance really problematic--as Kuhn would have said. That it can
>be
>> supported by people working in mathematical or logical or
>philosophical
>> grounds is OK, but remember please that "the tree of knowledge"  was
>> proposed not exactly for those fields but for the entire life. As
>wikipedia
>> blandly acknowledges: "The influence of *Autopoiesis* in mainstream
>> biology was limited. Autopoiesis is not commonly used as the
>criterion for
>> life...", citing from an aggiornamento proposed by Razeto-Barry,
>Pablo
>> (October 2012).
>> *"Autopoiesis 40 Years Later. A Review and A Reformulation"
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.researchgate.net/publication/232231194__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!XnqxvPkY3DZ0qm24FtSwHBLsPRrbl4YHc1CDT3u8HMVP2dum7rgwsbIydFJ0LNUBEpVZvOWMkX_Aal-W$>*
>> .
>>
>> Origins of Life.
>>
>> *42*
>>
>> (6):
>>
>> 543–567.
>>
>>
>> Best --Pedro
>>
>>
>> El 14/12/2025 a las 11:59, *joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
>> <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>* escribió:
>>
>> The recognition that “autopoiesis” is not some kind of monolithic,
>> spontaneous, *sui generis* process has been long in coming. For me,
>it is
>> at best an appearance-reality duality, without explanatory power.
>>
>>
>> If one agrees that “autopoiesis” does not operate like an on-off
>switch,
>> then there must be some intermediate stages or structures, as well as
>some
>> movement between them. The “auto-“ is then clearly a misnomer but let
>us go
>> on. It is these details of real processes that is, of any real change
>for
>> which Stéphane Lupasco proposed a movement between primarily actual
>to
>> primarily potential and *vice versa*, alternately and reciprocally.
>This
>> sinusoidal view of process is certainly to be found elsewhere, at
>least in
>> “potential” form, but Lupasco deserves the historical credit for
>having
>> formulated it. Identities – “my theory” – thus appear for what they
>are,
>> idealizations cut off from their opposites or, in reality, not
>> contradictions but  counteractions. *Pace *Steve, one must be able to
>> deal with *discontinuous *exchange, as well a continuous.
>>
>>
>> There is still no accepted “language” in which to express these
>> principles. I have tried, of course, a language of energy, following
>> Lupasco. Modern, post-Bertalanffy systems theory comes perhaps close,
>as
>> does Steve’s Autopoietic Ecology, since it recognizes the limitations
>of
>> static formulations of the dynamic real  world,*including *its
>domains
>> that are binary to all intentas and purposes.
>>
>>
>> I hope a renewed dialogue is possible, without recourse to the “baby”
>> diagrams of Peirce and Wittgenstein
>>
>>
>> Thanks and  best,
>> Joseph
>>
>> Le 13.12.2025 20:10 CET, Steve Watson *<sw10014 at cam.ac.uk>
>> <sw10014 at cam.ac.uk>* a écrit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Lou, dear colleagues,
>>
>>
>> Thank you for posting the 1974 Varela, Maturana, and Uribe paper — it
>is
>> extremely helpful to have the discussion re-anchored in the original
>> formulation.
>>
>>
>> I fully agree with the point you emphasise: autopoietic systems are
>not
>> materially or energetically closed. They exist only through
>continuous
>> exchange with their environment, while preserving an organisational
>> invariance across that exchange. The simple protocell model in the
>paper
>> remains one of the clearest demonstrations of this idea.
>>
>>
>> This is also the sense in which I use expressions such as O ≈ F(O):
>not as
>> a claim about self-containment, energetic closure, or perpetual
>motion, but
>> as a shorthand for organisational persistence across transformation.
>I
>> should probably make that explicit more often, as the notation
>clearly
>> invites misreadings.
>>
>>
>> For avoidance of doubt, Autopoietic Ecology does not treat
>autopoiesis as
>> a universal or exclusive explanatory principle. It treats it as one
>type of
>> organisational dynamic that becomes interesting precisely when
>systems are
>> open, fragile, metabolically dependent, and capable of breakdown as
>well as
>> persistence. The ecological emphasis is meant to foreground coupling,
>> constraint, and reorganisation rather than purity or closure.
>>
>>
>> I appreciate your reminder of how carefully these distinctions were
>drawn
>> in the original work. It helps keep the discussion focused on what
>> autopoiesis was actually intended to say — and what later extensions
>should
>> remain accountable to.
>>
>>
>> Warm regards,
>> Steve
>> Sent from *Outlook for iOS
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/aka.ms/o0ukef__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RkQN2OV63tPC5SkQehKl68utm5y4RNCuvAzahTMs7Guc-nNsFbJ1xenO8zci4NCEraNL98_xj7uBmedwO4jb$>*
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Fis *<fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>
>> <fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es>* on behalf of Louis Kauffman
>*<loukau at gmail.com>
>> <loukau at gmail.com>*
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 13, 2025 5:43:58 PM
>> *To:* Pedro C. Marijuán *<pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>
>> <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>*
>> *Cc:* *fis at listas.unizar.es <fis at listas.unizar.es>*
>*<fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> <fis at listas.unizar.es>*
>> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Current remarks/Autopoiesis
>>
>>
>> It is still worth while to read the original paper by Maturana,
>Varela and
>> Uribe.
>>
>*https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://monoskop.org/images/d/dd/Varela_Maturana_Uribe_1974_Autopoiesis.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQ3zzosCE$
>
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/monoskop.org/images/d/dd/Varela_Maturana_Uribe_1974_Autopoiesis.pdf__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!WyWMlWnFm0o4ncLeSN2bah-w8NstuK2jGIYI4dDC6K3eiM--0f70muEN4SkRLS50fLMhSd0qnVj-BUy1$>*
>> Here is a link to that paper.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 3:16 PM Pedro C. Marijuán
><*pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com
>> <pedroc.marijuan at gmail.com>*> wrote:
>>
>> Dear List,
>>
>>
>> When I hear on autopiesis, my impression is that many people continue
>to
>> be blindly tied to a conceptualization, interesting in its origins
>and
>> counterpoise to then dominant reductionist stances, but
>inconsequential
>> with its biological-cellular grounding --even in that very time, but
>even
>> more in our times. I argued past months on the AP weakness regarding
>> apoptosis & protein degradation, many genes rarely expressed along
>the life
>> cycle, openness to obtain foreign dna from the environment, plasmids
>&
>> phages uptake, horizontal gene transmission, multiple generation of
>gene
>> novelties, sex & recombinations, etc. About information in AP,
>"signaling"
>> is not accepted as such, but as "structural coupling with the niche"
>(so,
>> nothing about an external information flow or the like). About the
>obvious
>> need of, say, an energy flow there is no realization that a previous
>> sensing of ALL those items is needed. The revolution in prokaryotic
>> signaling brought by the discovery of "One Component Systems" (in the
>> hundreds in each bacteria) in last two decades clarify that
>point--how the
>> external substances are first "tasted" and later introjected. The
>> interception of an information flow best adapted to the ongoing life
>cycle
>> is continuously made.  So, the living cell is just "informational":
>in its
>> self-production, in its relationship with the environment, and in its
>> generation of multi-cell complexity.
>> To be continued one of these days.
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> --Pedro
>>
>>
>>  .   El 10/12/2025 a las 23:08, Krassimir Markov escribió:
>>
>> Dear Steve,
>>
>> I respect your opinion and understanding of the world through AE, but
>> still there are some reasonable scientific boundaries that should not
>be
>> crossed. Here is a small example.
>>
>> Air existed before we were born and, I hope, if there is no
>destructive
>> war instigated by russia, it will continue to exist after our death.
>At the
>> same time, without air we cannot live, i.e. we are an open system
>that
>> constantly exchanges resources with the environment. In other words,
>living
>> organisms are not autopoietic systems. To convince yourself of this
>> statement, just stop breathing. The conviction in the truth of the
>> statement will come to you only after a minute or two and you will
>probably
>> accept that your operator should be written
>>
>> O=F(O, Input, Output).
>>
>> I am writing this in connection with your statement that "Material
>> processes and interpretive activity are not alternatives; they are
>two
>> sides of the same ecological dynamic. Neither can be shown to precede
>the
>> other.” which I cannot accept as true.
>>
>> Just as there are no closed autopoietic systems, so there is no
>reality
>> that cannot exist without interpretation.
>>
>> The ecological dynamic you are talking about is a mental structure
>and, of
>> course, in it properly the mental structures that reflect the
>material
>> processes and the mental structures that interpret them are
>dialectically
>> connected in consciousness, and yes - they are two sides of a common
>mental
>> structure, if we can even talk about sides in mental structures.
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Eric,
>>
>> I completely agree with your thoughts. Indeed, the study of the
>processes
>> of interaction between people is very important and has great
>significance.
>> Unfortunately, my impression is that most researchers adhere to the
>deeply
>> erroneous and inapplicable to humans Shannon's paradigm.
>>
>> Yes, the theory of signal transmission is wonderfully applied in
>technical
>> data transmission systems, where the basic principle is "copy/paste".
>In
>> other words, the image that is formed in the recipient's memory
>completely
>> (100%!!!) coincides with the image in the sender's memory. Any
>deviation is
>> considered an error and requires re-sending the data, as well as the
>> application of error-resistant codes during transmission.
>>
>> In humans, this is absolutely impossible and inapplicable.
>"Copy/paste"
>> cannot happen due to the nature of the interaction between people,
>which is
>> at the level of meaning, and not at the level of signals
>(reflections). The
>> sender (a person or group of people) externalizes their mental
>structures
>> (for example, this letter), and the recipient reflects what they have
>> received and gives it their own meaning. It is impossible in this
>process
>> to obtain an exact copy of the image from the source's memory in the
>> receiver's memory. Therefore, it is correct to speak of "information
>> interaction" in people, and of "communication" in technical systems.
>I am
>> attaching a slide from my lecture at the IS4SI 2025 Summit, which
>contains
>> the brilliant thought of the Bulgarian poet Pencho Slaveykov,
>expressed
>> more than a century ago.
>>
>>
>>
>> With respect,
>>
>> Krassimir
>>
>>
>> *Error! Filename not specified.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Error! Filename not specified.
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QTuKkbEq3o-edqcFbLUT6Fj6mBkdCrLywyifmxx0aOnY7XGPCXlscdrBh4P_vF2wg7E_72E8WBjjtvbtkLc$>*
>>
>Virus-free.*https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.avast.com__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!UR_86SBPR6ubqSJ3lNYw_h5gO1zU_9-CtVF4Gyc6fIjTIKLKg4yfaQbKSbF8-G9bQjZrzUXGfz3CsSyQh5HXQdg$
>
>>
><https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!QTuKkbEq3o-edqcFbLUT6Fj6mBkdCrLywyifmxx0aOnY7XGPCXlscdrBh4P_vF2wg7E_72E8WBjjtvbtkLc$>*
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Fis mailing list
>>
>> *Fis at listas.unizar.es <Fis at listas.unizar.es>*
>>
>> *http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
><http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis  >*
>>
>> ----------
>>
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>>
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>gestionada por la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>>
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>el siguiente enlace:
>*https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
><https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>>*
>>
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>de baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>>
>> *http://listas.unizar.es   <http://listas.unizar.es/  >*
>>
>> ----------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> *Fis at listas.unizar.es <Fis at listas.unizar.es>*
>> *http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis  >*
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>gestionada por
>> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>el
>> siguiente enlace:
>*https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>
>>
><https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>>*
>>
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> *http://listas.unizar.es   <http://listas.unizar.es/  >*
>> ----------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> *Fis at listas.unizar.es <Fis at listas.unizar.es>*
>> *http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis  >*
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>gestionada por
>> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>el
>> siguiente
>enlace:*https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas
>>
><https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>>*
>>
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> *http://listas.unizar.es   <http://listas.unizar.es/  >*
>> ----------
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> *Fis at listas.unizar.es <Fis at listas.unizar.es>*
>> *http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis  >*
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>gestionada por
>> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>el
>> siguiente enlace:
>*https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>
>>
><https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>>*
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> *http://listas.unizar.es   <http://listas.unizar.es/  >*
>> ----------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> *http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>> <http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis  >*
>> ----------
>> INFORMACI�N SOBRE PROTECCI�N DE DATOS DE CAR�CTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>gestionada por
>> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la informaci�n sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>el
>> siguiente enlace:
>*https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>
>>
><https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>>*
>> Recuerde que si est� suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>de
>> baja desde la propia aplicaci�n en el momento en que lo desee.
>> *http://listas.unizar.es   <http://listas.unizar.es/  >*
>> ----------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis 
>> ----------
>> INFORMACIÓN SOBRE PROTECCIÓN DE DATOS DE CARÁCTER PERSONAL
>>
>> Ud. recibe este correo por pertenecer a una lista de correo
>gestionada por
>> la Universidad de Zaragoza.
>> Puede encontrar toda la información sobre como tratamos sus datos en
>el
>> siguiente enlace:
>>
>https://sicuz.unizar.es/informacion-sobre-proteccion-de-datos-de-caracter-personal-en-listas 
>
>> Recuerde que si está suscrito a una lista voluntaria Ud. puede darse
>de
>> baja desde la propia aplicación en el momento en que lo desee.
>> http://listas.unizar.es 
>> ----------
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20251219/46a6c37d/attachment-0001.html>