Getting squeezed a little.

“The idea of auto-cannibalism being autocatalysis … “dies” first.”

Good point – an essential attribute.

Thanks for the link.

“Resources can be obviated through cannibalism.” Agreed

“Maybe autocatalytics is cannibalism.” I think they are slightly different. As you point out, autocatalysis is a false construct. All catalysis requires “metabolic consumption of resources” from outside the system being described. All organisms on earth can metabolize energy (e.g. from the sun), basic elements like carbon, complex biomolecules, and many can metabolize other organisms, including those of their own “species”. When it crosses this species boundary, we call it cannibalism but of course the boundary itself is somewhat fuzzier than biologists like to think. The idea of auto-cannibalism being autocatalysis is close to the truth but there seems to be an additional connotation in cannibalism which is that the organism being metabolized “dies” first. If we agree that a descent chain of a replicating agents constitutes a single system/organism, then eating one’s relatives (which is an autocatalytic act) is indeed auto-cannibalism. And if we agree that “autocatalytic” is simply shorthand for a cross-catalytic cycle that seems to have very few steps, then the link between (auto)cannibalism and (auto)catalysis becomes even clearer.

“Lord I enjoy reading your work.” Thank you, that’s very kind. You may also like some colleagues of mine at the Autognomics Institute. They use very organic terminology that is more similar to your own than mine is.

May I suggest that agency is not “boolean” rather it is a continuum and the metric is persistence. Stability is a relative term that can be obviated through fecundity.
The organism need only survive long enough to procreate.
Resources can be obviated through cannibalism.
Autoimmunity and necrotizing fasciitis come to mind.
Maybe autocatalytics is cannibalism.
Or as Salivdor Dali might assert auto-cannibalism.

:)

Lord I enjoy reading your work.
I’ll check out the other two links.

I am ambivalent about the significance of this word.
I understand that it tries to define a process that feeds itself.
In this regard it feels scientific – one empirical disclosure at a time.
In reflection, I dislike the poor word usage; catalysis is a well defined or described event. Auto catalytic is by definition an oxymoron.

On the other hand I like the catch it tries to make as much as I dislike Dawkins’ muddled thinking.

We can presume that this encapsulation is flawed Prima facie .
Where is the mechanism for consumption and the mechanism for waste elimination?

It requires their implication. We have to buy the implication before we can buy the premise. This is a classical error in reasoning.

Not your error per say, just an example of how we complicate understanding.
Simplicity must be robust. Because it is robust, it must be capable of behaving as needed, and it must be capable of acquiring shape as needed.
In short – multibehavioral and polymorphic.
Why?
Because adaptation defines it as such.

The RMCM encapsulates catalysis within the hierarchy Influence – Metabolisms or complex mechanisms that regulate frequency. They acquire “fuel” and dispose of “waste” “systemically”. While the model proper is indifferent to the parenthetically enclosed these words are bridges across which one can trace back their reasoning.

This may or may not bear on your article at large.
I am confident from reading your work, that you are fully capable of proceeding on your own terms, without the dubious assistance of Mr. Dawkins.