Autopoiesis and Cognition¶
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science.
Cited by¶
7 citations across 7 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Autonomy
- In biology, autonomic regulation, cellular self-organization, and self-production are the biological forms, with the self-producing system the limiting case.
This sourceDevelops autopoiesis — self-production — as the limiting biological case of a self-governing, self-maintaining system.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The publisher abstract presents living systems as autonomous, self-referring, self-constructing (autopoietic) unities, backing self-production but not the three-form taxonomy.
“namely, that they are autonomous, self-referring and self-constructing closed systems - in short, autopoietic systems in their terms.”
- In biology, autonomic regulation, cellular self-organization, and self-production are the biological forms, with the self-producing system the limiting case.
- Autopoiesis
- … is autopoietic; the distinguishing property is self-production of the components themselves) — across these, the shared pattern is operational closure with structural openness: the system is closed for its self-producing dynamics while being open for energy, matter, or information exchange with the environment.
This sourceD. Reidel. English edition collecting De Máquinas y Seres Vivos (1972) and "Biology of Cognition" (1970) — the foundational definition of autopoiesis as a network of component-producing processes whose interactions regenerate the network and constitute the system as a unity.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The book's own abstract defines autopoietic systems as autonomous, self-referring, self-constructing closed unities, backing the self-production half of the claim but not the 'structural openness' clause.
“they are autonomous, self-referring and self-constructing closed systems - in short, autopoietic systems in their terms”
- … is autopoietic; the distinguishing property is self-production of the components themselves) — across these, the shared pattern is operational closure with structural openness: the system is closed for its self-producing dynamics while being open for energy, matter, or information exchange with the environment.
- Closure
- An autarky is an economy closed under the production-and-consumption operations (every input required for production is produced internally; every output is consumed internally), and the impossibility of literal autarky in modern industrial economies is part of the standard introductory lesson on comparative advantage and trade — a closure property Maturana and Varela (1980) generalise to living systems under the rubric of autopoiesis.
This sourceD. Reidel. English edition collecting De Máquinas y Seres Vivos (1972) and 'Biology of Cognition' (1970); foundational definition of autopoiesis as a network of component-producing processes that regenerate the network and constitute the system as a self-contained unity.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The book's abstract states that Maturana and Varela characterize living systems as autonomous, self-referring, self-constructing closed (autopoietic) systems; it says nothing about autarky, comparative advantage or trade.
“namely, that they are autonomous, self-referring and self-constructing closed systems - in short, autopoietic systems in their terms”
- An autarky is an economy closed under the production-and-consumption operations (every input required for production is produced internally; every output is consumed internally), and the impossibility of literal autarky in modern industrial economies is part of the standard introductory lesson on comparative advantage and trade — a closure property Maturana and Varela (1980) generalise to living systems under the rubric of autopoiesis.
- Constructivist Learning
- Success is measured not by fidelity to an external standard but by the viability of the learner's model for solving novel problems and making sense of new phenomena, and by the learner's growing capacity for self-directed inquiry—a stance Maturana and Varela (1980) ground biologically in Autopoiesis and Cognition, where cognition is reframed as the maintenance of a viable organism-environment coupling rather than the mirroring of an external reality.
This sourceD. Reidel. Reframes cognition as the maintenance of a viable organism–environment coupling rather than the mirroring of an external reality (supports the coupling/viability half of D48-050; see flag).
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The abstract biologically grounds cognition in self-referential systems but does not state the 'organism–environment coupling rather than mirroring' formulation.
“Maturana goes on to define cognition as a biological phenomenon; as, in effect, the very nature of all living systems.”
- Success is measured not by fidelity to an external standard but by the viability of the learner's model for solving novel problems and making sense of new phenomena, and by the learner's growing capacity for self-directed inquiry—a stance Maturana and Varela (1980) ground biologically in Autopoiesis and Cognition, where cognition is reframed as the maintenance of a viable organism-environment coupling rather than the mirroring of an external reality.
- Environmental Coupling Strength
- The distinction is topological: coupling is internal architecture; environmental coupling strength is boundary permeability—a separation Maturana and Varela (1980) made central to their account of structural coupling between an autopoietic system and its medium.
This sourceD. Reidel. Foundational definition of autopoiesis and of structural coupling between an autopoietic system and its medium/environment. SUPPORTS marker 185 (structural coupling between an autopoietic system and its medium; coupling as boundary permeability vs internal architecture).
- The distinction is topological: coupling is internal architecture; environmental coupling strength is boundary permeability—a separation Maturana and Varela (1980) made central to their account of structural coupling between an autopoietic system and its medium.
- Second-Order Cybernetics (Second-Order Observation)
- … where researchers shape their subjects; family therapy where therapists shape the family system they study; organizational consulting where consultants are part of organizational dynamics; autopoiesis and cognition where living systems are their own observers (Maturana and Varela's Autopoiesis and Cognition 1980
This sourceD. Reidel. English edition collecting De Máquinas y Seres Vivos (1972) and "Biology of Cognition" (1970); foundational definition of autopoiesis as a network of component-producing processes whose interactions regenerate the network and constitute the system as a unity in space.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
The book's abstract characterizes autopoietic systems as autonomous, self-referring, self-constructing closed unities and cognition as the nature of all living systems; it backs only the autopoiesis clause of the sentence.
“Thus, the standpoint of description of such unities from the 'outside', i. , by an observer, already seems to violate the fundamental requirement which Maturana and Varela posit for the characterization of such system- namely, that they are autonomous, self-referring and self-constructing closed systems - in short, autopoietic systems in their terms.”
- … where researchers shape their subjects; family therapy where therapists shape the family system they study; organizational consulting where consultants are part of organizational dynamics; autopoiesis and cognition where living systems are their own observers (Maturana and Varela's Autopoiesis and Cognition 1980
- Self-Organization
- Maturana and Varela (1980) introduced autopoiesis: self-organizing systems that reproduce themselves through circular causal organization, defining living systems and providing metaphor for cognitive and social closure
This sourceD. Reidel. English edition collecting De Máquinas y Seres Vivos (1972) and "Biology of Cognition" (1970); foundational definition of autopoiesis as a network of component-producing processes whose interactions regenerate the network and constitute the system as a unity in space.
Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract
Abstract confirms autopoiesis as self-referring, self-constructing closed unities defining living systems, but not circular causal organization or social-closure metaphor.
“they are autonomous, self-referring and self-constructing closed systems - in short, autopoietic systems in their terms”
- Maturana and Varela (1980) introduced autopoiesis: self-organizing systems that reproduce themselves through circular causal organization, defining living systems and providing metaphor for cognitive and social closure
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 6 of 7 citations: 6 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:a61b7cd0e34e · see in the full table