In the target article, it was claimed that the enactive extended interpretation of the autopoietic theory (AT) of living beings is incorrect, and an embodied reformulation of AT (EAT) was put forward to remedy and prevent such an interpretation. In this general reply, I want to clarify the motivation, reach, philosophical commitments, and theoretical status of EAT. I do this, mainly, by explicating the notions of body and autopoiesis, and by reconstructing EAT, not as a conceptual definition of life but as a theoretical identity statement of living beings as a natural kind.
AgmonE. (2019). Deriving the bodily grounding of living beings with molecular autopoiesis. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319830645
2.
AyalaD. (2019). Cohesiveness is not an adequate theory of general individuation and it does not account for living individuals. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319833912
3.
BarrettN. F. (2019). Dissipative systems and living bodies. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319841306
4.
BeerR. D. (2019). Lost in words. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319867907
5.
ClavelM. J. (2019). Two challenges to the embodied version of the autopoietic theory. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319839641
6.
ClelandC.ChybaC. (2002). Defining “life.”Origins of Life and Evolution of the Biosphere, 32, 387–393.
7.
CorrisA.ChemeroA. (2019). The broad scope of enactivism. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319843268
8.
Di PaoloE. A. (2019). Why do we build the wall?Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319834884
9.
HarveyI. (2019). Habeas corpus: The ins and outs of autopoiesis. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319836401
McGregorS. (2019). Why living bodies could be dead weight. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319838211
12.
McGregorS.VirgoN. (2011). Life and its close relatives. In KampisG.KarsaiI.SzathmáryE. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Advances in artificial life: Darwin meets von Neumann—ECAL 2009 (Vol. 5778, pp. 230–237). Berlin, Germany; Springer.
13.
MaturanaH. (2011). Ultrastability … autopoiesis? Reflective response to Tom Froese and John Stewart. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 18, 143–152.
14.
MaturanaH. (2019). Reflections in relation to the article of Villalobos and Razeto. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319841740
15.
MaturanaH.VarelaF. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition: The realization of the living. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
16.
MeinckeA. S. (2019). Systems or bodies? On how (not) to embody autopoiesis. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319841301
17.
MillerM.NaveK. (2019). Slimes and cyborgs: Stretching the boundaries of life. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319843267
TurnerJ. S. (2000). The extended organism: The physiology of animal-built structures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
21.
VecchiD. (2019). Entrenchment implies that physiological and developmental processes are not organism-bound but still organism-centric. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319838801
22.
VirgoN. (2019). The necessity of extended autopoiesis. Adaptive Behavior. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1059712319841557
