This was accidentally posted here due to me doing something wrong with the ‘press this’ bookmarklet in Chrome. Ho hum.
Leaving here for Arthur’s comments, but now reblogged at http://www.syscoi.com where it was intended to go originally, and where you can find Much More Like This!
Maturana and Varela defined an autopoietic system as a self-regenerating network of processes. We reinterpret and elaborate this conception starting from a process ontology and its formalization in terms of reaction networks and chemical organization theory. An autopoietic organization can be modelled as a network of “molecules” (components) undergoing reactions, which is (operationally) closed and self-maintaining. Such organizations, being attractors of a dynamic system, tend to self-organize—thus providing a model for the origin of life. However, in order to survive in a variable environment, they must also be resilient, i.e. able to recover from perturbations. According to the cybernetic law of requisite variety, this requires cognition, i.e. the ability to recognize and compensate perturbations. Such cognition becomes more effective as it learns to accurately anticipate perturbations by discovering invariant patterns in its interactions with the environment. Nevertheless, the resulting predictive model remains a subjective construction. Such…
www.bentaylor.com
* curator at www.syscoi.com
* The Public Service Transformation Academy - Chief Executive - www.publicservicetransformation.org
* RedQuadrant - public service network consultancy - www.redquadrant.com
* SCiO - non-exec director - www.systemspractice.org
* Quadrant Resourcing - excellent interim change people - www.quadrantresourcing.com
I tweet at www.twitter.com/antlerboy
Please connect to me at www.linkedin.com/in/antlerboy
benjamin.taylor@redquadrant.com
+44 (0)7931317230
+1 (626) 470-6600
View all posts by antlerboy - Benjamin P Taylor
Published
7 thoughts on “Modeling Autopoiesis and Cognition with Reaction Networks”
Whoops – this was on the wrong blog – leaving here for the comments, but posting at http://www.syscoi.com as intended!
I cannot give you a definitive answer on that because (a) I’m not sure I know what it is and I am not sure how I would really be clear about Helighen’s position. I have 83 references in my email archives to Heylighen and Maturana, and they appeared on panels and had a number of discussions together – so I expect he does understand it, but do not know if he agrees with it….
Like any guru-expert-thoughtleader[ugh] we all have our own Maturana.
I’m not sure that HM himself would claim to fully understand his radical conception of biological cognition.
I think Stuart Kauffmann [mispelt, I know] is probably a better guide to thinking about ‘biological cognition’. Oo, heresy!
More generally, it seems that every week there is another article in NS about previously undiscovered amazing animal capabilities – crocodiles using sticks to prey on nesting birdies, birdies using sticks to get ants for lunch out of crevices in rotted trees, ants making suspension bridges out of themselves, water remembering things [not that last one, that’s bolx, LOL], blah blah.
How long will it take, post Darwin, for us to realise that cognition is a characteristic of all living things, maan…
How the duck can you model cognition if you don’t know what cognition is?
chosen path 
Whoops – this was on the wrong blog – leaving here for the comments, but posting at http://www.syscoi.com as intended!
LikeLike
And what exactly is this marvelous research giving us that M&V haven’t?
Are they going to invent a supercomputer
MATH2-RAM-A
that can simulate a human being when you talk to social services about your children?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, I think to many other people are doing that..
Heylighen knows his shit – though may have some different perspectives than you. Worth reading.
LikeLike
Ok, cool, but does he understand the VERY broad conception of cognition developed by prof M?
LikeLike
I haven’t read the full paper, TLDR, but unless they understand …
M&V’s conception of cognition
(spoiler alert: it’s a very broad definition of cognition)
then their model of said cognition is going to lack ‘that Ashby thing’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I cannot give you a definitive answer on that because (a) I’m not sure I know what it is and I am not sure how I would really be clear about Helighen’s position. I have 83 references in my email archives to Heylighen and Maturana, and they appeared on panels and had a number of discussions together – so I expect he does understand it, but do not know if he agrees with it….
LikeLiked by 1 person
sure, well said.
Like any guru-expert-thoughtleader[ugh] we all have our own Maturana.
I’m not sure that HM himself would claim to fully understand his radical conception of biological cognition.
I think Stuart Kauffmann [mispelt, I know] is probably a better guide to thinking about ‘biological cognition’. Oo, heresy!
More generally, it seems that every week there is another article in NS about previously undiscovered amazing animal capabilities – crocodiles using sticks to prey on nesting birdies, birdies using sticks to get ants for lunch out of crevices in rotted trees, ants making suspension bridges out of themselves, water remembering things [not that last one, that’s bolx, LOL], blah blah.
How long will it take, post Darwin, for us to realise that cognition is a characteristic of all living things, maan…
How the duck can you model cognition if you don’t know what cognition is?
LikeLiked by 1 person