Open peer commentary on the article “Natural Drift: A Minimal Theory with Maximal Consequences” by Jorge Mpodozis. Abstract: Jorge Mpodozis presents natural drift as an organism-centered view of biological evolution. Currently, many other research programs in biology and philosophy of biology pursue organismic perspectives in evolution. We consider some of the features appearing in the article in this light in order to highlight what is special in Mpodozis’s proposal. We contend that collaborations among research programs would be valuable and suggest that the major contribution of natural drift for organismic projects lies in its dynamic organizational features.

Open peer commentary on the article “Natural Drift: A Minimal Theory with Maximal Consequences” by Jorge Mpodozis. Abstract: I appreciate the consistency in Mpodozis’s theoretical approach. However, by assuming that autopoiesis can only be applied to the molecular mode of operation of organisms, he fails to exploit the potential of autopoiesis for elucidating evolutionary theory.

Open peer commentary on the article “Natural Drift: A Minimal Theory with Maximal Consequences” by Jorge Mpodozis. Abstract: In its current formulation, natural drift, despite being non-adaptationist, apparently follows the machine metaphor. I scrutinize the notion of machines on the basis of the four Aristotelian causes and argue that, following Rosen’s work, living systems are causal systems but not mechanisms and, therefore, not “machines.” This leads to the question as to whether natural drift is a blind and reactive mechanism or whether it entails anticipation in the sense that organisms are able to distinguish the potential effects of their actions on their environment. This aspect has a bearing on the question of whether natural drift can account for the origin of Earth’s habitability.

Abstract: The commentaries on my target article encompass a large and diverse variety of interesting topics, ranging from fundamental notions relevant to systemic thinking, to the planetary crisis. The reading of these commentaries has revealed to me that the main weakness of my article consists in my failure to provide more rigorous and explicit definitions or explications of my use of the main epistemological and biological notions that sustain my position. Through my response, I intend to present these basic notions in a more explicit manner, while at the same time addressing what I consider to be the nuclear aspects of each of the commentaries.

Context: Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition (BoC) represents a novel analysis of cognition grounded in biology and neuroscience. While BoC has facilitated demonstrable improvements in research and development results, it contrasts with prevailing mainstream viewpoints, models, and terminology. Accordingly, effort is required to develop a working knowledge of Maturana’s work before one can reasonably apply it or contribute to BoC’s ongoing conceptual advancement. Problem: The effort required in learning BoC increases the risk of misrepresenting or misinterpreting BoC and overlooking its value. Applying BoC requires both a working knowledge and creative adaptations. These adaptations can prove difficult and obscure recognition of credit due BoC for positive outcomes. Finally, the BoC community of interest faces challenges in absorbing lessons learned and refining the BoC conceptual framework to facilitate future researchers in benefiting from Maturana’s legacy. These issues reflect three areas of concern: (a) effectively understanding BoC; (b) usefully applying BoC; and (c) elaborating and extending BoC. Method: I identify key issues underlying these areas of concern, review lessons learned regarding the understanding and application areas, and offer recommendations for elucidating some of the most important issues for constructively advancing BoC. Using examples from successful professional experience, I illustrate the issues involved in applying BoC in research and development projects, the benefits obtained, and the problems in assigning credit for such benefits to BoC. Results: Access to fundamental BoC resources has improved over the last three decades. The specific points of difficulty in developing a working knowledge of BoC remain much the same as they were for Maturana’s university students decades ago. The four issues I consider most important for clarification or conceptual development are: A - the role and scope of autopoiesis, B - ontological and epistemological entailments of BoC, C - the entitative bias, and D - the new orientation that shifts from entities to relations. Implications: The core of biology of cognition risks increasing obscurity unless (a) its tenets are more clearly established and widely disseminated and (b) the means for applying its insights for practical benefit are developed and tested via experience. These results are offered to aid in progressing Maturana’s version of constructivism toward increased recognition of the potential value BoC - and constructivism in general - offers. Constructivist content: Maturana’s work entails a focus on an observer’s subjective experience of its life world, and therefore entails an epistemology consistent with the constructivist perspective. Key words: Applied constructivism, autopoiesis, biology of cognition, epistemology, languaging, Maturana, observer, ontology, Varela.

Open peer commentary on the article “In Maturana’s Wake: The Biology of Cognition’s Legacy and its Prospects” by Randall Whitaker. Abstract: Influential texts are often long, complicated, dense, and difficult to read. While these texts have their place, it seems they are not utilized by the masses as frequently as content that is shorter, easier to understand, practical, and in a format that is more interactive. A proposal is made for practical applications of Maturana’s research to be presented in short videos to improve the understandability of his ideas while also increasing its popularity and value.

Open peer commentary on the article “In Maturana’s Wake: The Biology of Cognition’s Legacy and its Prospects” by Randall Whitaker. Abstract: With respect to pedagogic goals, Whitaker’s work stands for itself. First, I suggest valuing Maturana’s first-person approach to social interaction analysis and further exploring his late work and experience in applying biology of cognition to practical problems in social relations. Then I criticize Whitaker’s insufficient explanation of his distinction of the “abstract (non-physical)” nature of what he calls the “novel domain” engendered by the feature of operational closure of the nervous system. I end by discussing the difficulties encountered by the author when trying to “extract” a pedagogical methodology from biology of cognition.

Open peer commentary on the article “In Maturana’s Wake: The Biology of Cognition’s Legacy and its Prospects” by Randall Whitaker. Abstract: Engaging with biology of cognition is a form of practice rather than application. In the context of design, biology of cognition can be conceived of as initiating an educational process that supports agents to act “from within” rather than “from without.”

Open peer commentary on the article “In Maturana’s Wake: The Biology of Cognition’s Legacy and its Prospects” by Randall Whitaker. Abstract: Following Whitaker’s target article I have sought to understand, apply and extend Humberto Maturana’s biology of cognition (BoC. My approach has been to use a few key concepts pertinent to interpersonal ethical issues and so I avoided being enmeshed in BoC. This commentary is presented as an extension or application of BoC going beyond the details considered in the target article.

Open peer commentary on the article “In Maturana’s Wake: The Biology of Cognition’s Legacy and its Prospects” by Randall Whitaker. Abstract: I seek to build upon Whitaker’s progress in bringing insights from Maturana’s corpus to bear in consensual operational domains. By connecting Whitaker’s methods to the work of other cyberneticians and offering an approach to systemic racism as a “test-case,” it seeks to connect Whitaker’s work to an emergent critical cybernetics that shares similar concerns.