(…)
The authors first of all say that an autopoietic system is a homeostat. We already know what that is: a device for holding a critical systemic variable within physiological limits. They go on the definitive point: in the case of autopoietic homeostasis, the critical variable is the system’s own organization. It does not matter, it seems, wether every measurable property of that organizational structure changes utterly in the system’s process of continuing adaptation. It survives.
This is a very exciting idea to me for two reasons. In the first place, it solves the problem of identity which two thousand years of philosophy hace succeded only in further confounding. The search for the “it” has lead farther and farther away from anything that common sense could call reality. The “it” of scholasticism is a mythological substance in which anything attested by the senses or testable by science inheres a mere accident — its existence is a matter of faith. The “it” of rationalism is unrealistically schizophrenic, because it is uncompromising in its duality — extended substance and thinking substance. The “it” of empiricism is unrealistically insubstancial and ephemeral at the same time — esse est percipi is by no means the veredict of any experiencing human being.
The “it” of Kant is the trascendental “thing-in-itself” — an untestable inference, an intelectual gewgaw. As to the “it” of science and technology in the twentieth century world of conspicuous consumption… “it” seems to be no more than the collection of the epiphenomena which marks “it” as consumer or consumed. In this way hardhead materialism seems to make “it” as insubstantial as subjective idealism made it at the turn of the seventeenth century. And this, the very latest, the most down-to-earth, interpretation of “it” the authors explicily refute.
Their “it” is notified precisely by its survival in a real world. You cannot find it by analysis, because its categories may all have changed since you last looked. There is no need to postulate a mystical something which ensures the preservation of identity despite appareances. The very continuation is “it”. At least, that is my understanding of the author’s thesis — and I note with some glee that this means that Bishop Berkeley got the precisely right argument precisely wrong. He contended that something not being observed goes out of existence. Autopoiesis say that something that exists may turn out to be unrecognizable when you next observe it. This brings us back to reality, for that is surely true.
The second reason why the concept of autopoiesis excites me so much is that it involves the destruction of teleology. When this notion is fully worked out and debated, I suspect it will prove to be as important in the history of the philosophy of science as David Hume’s attack on causality. Hume considered that causation is a mental construct projected onto changing events which have, as we would say today, associated probabilities of mutual occurrence. I myself have for a long time been convinced that purpose is a mental construct imported by the observer to explain what is really an equilibrial phenomenon of polystable systems. The arguments in Chapter II appear to me to justify this view completely, and I leave the reader to engender his own excitement in the discovery of a “purposelessness” that nonetheless makes good sense to a human being — just because he is allowed to keep his identity, which alone is his “purpose”. It is enough.
(…)
Stafford Beer, en su introducción al paper “autopoiesis”, en Autopoiesis and cognition, The realization of the living, de Humberto Maturana y Francisco Varela, páginas 66 y 67 (48 del PDF).