Talk:Autopoiesis

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 03:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The definition of autopoiesis given at the beginning sets that "refers to a system capable of reproducing and maintaining itself by creating its own parts and eventually further components." This leads to a mistake. Reproduction is not a necesary condition for autopoiesis, as it is in all organisms that do not reproduce (like a working ant or bee). I would supress the term reproducing or changed to producing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.111.169.50 (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Vanteloop (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

text: If my memory serves me correctly, Fritjof Capra used the whirlpool in one of his books as a simplified analogy of the human body; Rather than being an object, the human body/whirlpool is a process - a continuous flux of material which maintains its own form, provided that the supply of new material is maintained. Might have been in The Web of Life. Brilliant book/author. nagualdesign (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. but this isn't relevant to the point made by EnolaGaia. Jibal (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopoïesis 

message: I think this article would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the concept within the 3 domains it might be applied: biological, chemical, and social. In other words, could 3 headings be created under which follows an explanation of autopoiesis as it is understood/used within those domains?
Occamster (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of the categories used, someone with more smarts than myself needs to greatly expand this article. As it stands a critically important topic is done a disservice. Robin726 (talk) 04:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this article

message: Life is a semi-open system, not a closed system, at whatever level it is viewed. I very much doubt that M&V would have said autopoiesis refers to a closed system, but if they did, show me where. Macdonald-ross (talk)
:I suggest this clarification in the article: an autopoietic system is autonomous and operationally closed, in the sense that there are sufficient processes within it to maintain the whole answers this criticism. 'Closure' is being defined here as 'no outside processes required'. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-open system, not closed 

message: In the introduction the book "Autopoiesis and Cognition: the Realization of the Living (1st edition 1973, 2nd 1980)" is cited several times, but without further links or information.
In fact, the earliest reference I could find is: [Varela & Maturana. Autopoiesis: The organization of living systems,
its characterization and a model. Biosystems 5, 187–196 (1974)]. And this one is not mentioned here.
I think that the introduction should be changed to include just this reference, or the book should be properly referred with full detailed.
Omer http://sites.google.com/site/omermar/ 15:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The book "de máquinas y seres vivos" was published in 1973 (Varela states so in the preface to the second edition), but the introduction in this article cites fragments from the preface to the second edition (1994, as far as I can tell). I'm not sure when was that preface added to the english edition of the book. The introduction here is a bit misleading: the original book was written in english, but the spanish translation was published first. Then, in 1980, the original (english) was published, including one article by Maturana, and another by Breer.  Aruboro (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original reference