Bich L. & Etxeberria A. (2013) Systems, autopoietic. In: Dubitzky W., Wolkenhauer O., Yokota H. & Cho K. H. (eds.) Encyclopedia of systems biology. Springer, New York: 2110–2113. https://cepa.info/2314
Etxeberria A. (1998) Embodiment of natural and artificial agents. In: Van de Vijver G., Salthe S. & Delpos M. (eds.) Evolutionary systems: Biological and epistemological perspectives on selection and self-organization. Kluwer, Dordrecht: 397–412. https://cepa.info/2942
Excerpt: The term embodiment suggests a return to the body (or to a physical or perceivable realm) of something that was (but should not be) previously separated from it. This phenomenon can be found in a wide range of contexts; for example, abstract entities, such as computer programmes, may acquire dynamics when executed in material devices; theoretical ideas can become operative when put in relation to practical or contingent situations; or, similarly, when considered as properties of bodies (including brains), mental capacities recover a physical nature. The return we refer to has an explanatory character: it is motivated by an assumption that embodiment may throw light upon areas where disembodied explanations are unsatisfactory. Many scientific and philosophical traditions have postulated privileged realms (e.g. Platonic worlds) deprived of materiality, dynamics, interactions or praxis for explanation, but they priorise the know that in front of the know how and may thus side-step the more complex problems. This is the reason why it is important to explore a differently motivated epistemology, one able to approach phenomena in their original embodied situations. Then, a claim for embodiment would not be a demand for a restitution, but an urge to start from the beginning, from the things themselves.
Etxeberria A. (2000) Complementarity and closure. In: Chandler J. & Van de Vijver G. (eds.) Closure: Emergent organizations and their dynamics. New York Academy of Sciences, New York: 198–206.
This paper compares two different accounts of closure to explain biological organization: as an organization enabled by an informational control on dynamics (Pattee) and as an internal closure of a dynamic nature (Varela) The two of them adopt different versions of a principle of complementarity to relate symbolic and dynamic explanations.
Etxeberria A. (2004) Autopoiesis and natural drift: Genetic information, reproduction, and evolution revisited. Artificial Life 10(3): 347–360. https://cepa.info/4153
The contribution of the theory of autopoiesis to the definition of life and biological theory affirms biological autonomy as a central notion of scientific and philosophical inquiry, and opposes other biological approaches, based on the notion of genetic information, that consider reproduction and evolution to be the central aspects of life and living phenomenology. This article reviews the autopoietic criticisms of genetic information, reproduction, and evolution in the light of a biology that can solve the problem of living organization.
Etxeberria A. & Bich L. (2017) Auto-organización y autopoiesis. In: Vanney C. E., Silva I. & Franck J. F. (eds.) Diccionario interdisciplinar austral. https://cepa.info/4736
This paper reviews Pattee’s ideas about the symbolic domain as a phenomenon related to the self-simplifying processes of certain hierarchical systems, such as the living. We distinguish the concepts of constraint, record, and symbol to explain how the Semantic Closure Principle, that is to say, the view that symbols are self-interpreted by the cell, emerges. Related to this, the notion of complementarity is discussed both as an epistemological and as an ontological principle. In the final discussion we consider whether autonomous systems can exist in which constraints are not symbolically preserved, and if biological symbols can be considered to have a descriptive nature.
Etxeberria A., Merelo J. J. & Moreno A. (1994) Studying organisms with basic cognitive capacities in artificial worlds. Cognitiva 3(2): 203–218. https://cepa.info/3929
In this paper we pose the problem of how to study basic cognitive processes in the frame of simulations of artificial worlds of the style of Artificial Life. The main difficulty of simulating biologically grounded cognitive processes lies in the search for forms of organisms suitable to establish functional relationships with their environments and coevolve with them. In order to attempt it, we study the properties of autonomous systems at different degrees of complexity and the origin of cognitive processes as a sophistication of primitive sensors-motor loops of living systems. The distinction between what we call ontogenetic adaptation to an environment and learning motivates a definition of two different degrees of complexity of that interaction. While the first one generates a variety of structures within individuals in an evolutionary scale, the second one produces a subsystem that is modulated during the life of each organism. We present some ideas to develop a model of an Artificial World where some our theoretical claims can be studied and suggest that an AL approach can arise an interesting discussion in Cognitive Science.
Fernandez J., Moreno A. & Etxeberria A. (1991) Life as emergence: The roots of a new paradigm in theoretical biology. World Futures 32(2–3): 133–149. https://cepa.info/6234
A discussion of various theories of emergence is given. It is argued that artificial life and the related theoretical constructs have to be rethought on the basis of new epistemological foundations. In particular, three earlier approaches, the theories of ‘anticipatory systems,’ ‘semantic closure’ and ‘component systems’ are examined from the point of view of representation of emergence. In addition, reductionism and the theory of autopoiesis are considered as possible alternatives. On the basis of these discussions, the possibility for a synthetic view of biological existence, based on the notion of emergence, is outlined.
We analyze the conditions for agency in natural and artificial systems. In the case of basic (natural) autonomous systems, self-construction and activity in the environment are two aspects of the same organization, the distinction between which is entirely conceptual: their sensorimotor activities are metabolic, realized according to the same principles and through the same material transformations as those typical of internal processes (such as energy transduction). The two aspects begin to be distinguishable in a particular evolutionary trend, related to the size increase of some groups of organisms whose adaptive abilities depend on motility. Here a specialized system develops, which, in the sensorimotor aspect, is decoupled from the metabolic basis, although it remains dependent on it in the self-constructive aspect. This decoupling reveals a complexification of the organization. In the last section of the article this approach to natural agency is used to analyze artificial systems by posing two problems: whether it is possible to artificially build an organization similar to the natural, and whether this notion of agency can be grounded on different organizing principles.
Moreno A., Etxeberria A. & Umerez J. (2008) The autonomy of biological individuals and artificial models. BioSystems 91(2): 309–319. https://cepa.info/3781
This paper aims to offer an overview of the meaning of autonomy for biological individuals and artificial models rooted in a specific perspective that pays attention to the historical and structural aspects of its origins and evolution. Taking autopoiesis and the recursivity characteristic of its circular logic as a starting point, we depart from some of its consequences to claim that the theory of autonomy should also take into account historical and structural features. Autonomy should not be considered only in internal or constitutive terms, the largely neglected interactive aspects stemming from it should be equally addressed. Artificial models contribute to get a better understanding of the role of autonomy for life and the varieties of its organization and phenomenological diversity.