Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
1 Aspect of Autopoiesis 1 . 1 Properties of Autopoiesis
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Nomura, Tatsuya |
| Abstract | Autopoiesis is a neologism, introduced by Maturana and Varela to designate the organization of a minimal living system[9]. Maturana produced the theory of autopoiesis based on his works on visual nervous systems, and then Varela developed his own system theory. Later, Luhmann applied autopoiesis to the theory of social systems[8]. Recently, this theory has been applied to not only sociology but also psychopathology. However, there are still few mathematical or computational models that represent autopoiesis itself because of its novelty and originality. In this paper, we introduce a recent situation for mathematical and computational descriptions of autopoiesis, and discuss its implications in system science. 1 Aspect of Autopoiesis 1.1 Properties of Autopoiesis Autopoiesis gives a framework in which a system exists as an organism through physical and chemical processes, based on the assumption that organisms are machinary. An autopoietic system is one that continuously produces the components that specify it, while at the same time realizing itself to be a concrete unity in space and time; this makes the network of production of components possible. An autopoietic system is organized as a network of processes of production of components, where these components: 1. continuously regenerate and realize the network that produces them, and 2. constitute the system as a distinguishable unity in the domain in which they exist. Maturana gives a car as a representative example of non–autopoietic systems and claims the following[9]: The self–maintenance of a car as itself is realized only when there is a relation between inputs from a driver The author transfered to Faculty of Management Information, Hannan University, Japan, at April, 2000. and outputs of the car. On the other hand, living systems self–maintain themselves by repeatedly reproducing the components and not by actions from others. Although they take nutritious substances from the outside, the organization is not determined corresponding to the substances. The processes for self–reproduction exist firstly and foremost, and the nutritious substances are subordinate to these processes. The characteristics of autopoietic systems Maturana gives are as follows: 1. Autonomy: Autopoietic machinery integrates various changes into the maintenance of its organization. A car, the above example of a non–autopoietic system, does not have any autonomy. 2. Individuality: Autopoietic machinery has its identity independent of mutual actions between it and external observers, by repeatedly reproducing and maintaining the organization. The identity of a non–autopoietic system is dependent on external observers and such a system does not have any individuality. 3. Self–Determination of the Boundary of the System: Autopoietic machinery determines its boundary through the self–reproduction processes. Since the boundaries of non–autopoietic systems are determined by external observers, self–determination of the boundaries does not apply to them. 4. Absence of Input and Output in the System: Even if a stimulus independent of an autopoietic machine causes continuous changes in the machine, these changes are subordinate to the maintenance of the organization which specifies the machine. Thus, the relation between the stimulus and the changes lies in the area of observation, and not in the organization. Moreover, Kawamoto positions dynamical stable systems which self–maintain themselves through metabolism to the outside, self–organizing systems such as crystals which grow while morphing themselves according to their environment, and autopoietic systems, as the first, the second, and the third generation systems, respectively [6]. Kawamoto particularly focuses on the fourth item among the above characteristics of autopoiesis, i.e., absence of input and output in the system. When we consider the ”absence of input and output”, important is the view where the system is understood based on the production processes. Kawamoto claims the following: the view of the relation between inputs and outputs in the system is one from external observers and it does not clarify the organization or the operation of the production in the system. A living cell only reproduces its components and does not produce the components while adjusting itself according to the relation between itself and oxygen in the air. Although the density of oxygen affects the production processes, external observers decide the influence and the cell does not. As long as the system is grasped from an internal view of the cell, the system does not have any ”inputs and outputs”. The gist in the concept of autopoietic systems Kawamoto gives involves the following: 1. The set of components of a system is determined by the operation of the system. 2. The operation of the system precedes the initial condition. 3. The operation of the system is executed only to succeed itself and does not aim to produce by–products. 4. In the operation of the system, the things that happen in the system clearly differ from the things that external observers discriminate. 1.2 Development of Autopoiesis in a Variety of Research Areas The most important characteristic of autopoiesis is its development in not only life system theory but also a variety of research areas such as sociology, cognitive science, phisiology, sociology, and psychopathology. Luhmann applied autopoiesis to the theory of social systems, developing his own interpretation of it[8]. In his theory of autopoiesis, the concept of communications is introduced to solve a problem on complex systems of autopoietic systems, that is, whether social systems as complex systems of human mental systems can be autopoietic systems. In his theory, a social system is not a whole system having human mental systems as its subsystems, but an autopoietic system having communications as its components. Mental systems are autopoietic systems having thoughts as their components by themselves and are coupling with social systems, that is, each system is operationally closed and they are mutually linking. Ciompi applied cybernetic system theoreis including autopoiesis to psychopathology[2]. He argued that cognitive elements and affective elements in human mind are indivisible and correspond to polar states in a system called “affection–cognition schema”. Then, he constructed a model in which individuals’ mental systems and family systems with them as their elements mutually interact. Based on this model, he analyzed schizophrenics caught in “double bind situations” [1] and human relations in the families that maintain the situations (in this sense, Ciompi used dynamical stable systems in his model and autopoiesis is explicitly not used). Moreover, Kawamoto and Hanamura applied the theory of autopoiesis to models of schizophrenia extending the definition of autopoiesis[7]. 2 Difficulty in Interpretation of |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | http://rins.st.ryukoku.ac.jp/~nomura/docs/AP_AFSS2000.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
