Self terminology reform

Kinesin (labeled)
An “autodidact”, an “automobile”, and “kinesin”, a motor protein that converts the energy from ATP hydrolysis into mechanical work to drive movement along microtubules in a variety of cellular processes such as organelle transport and cell division (Ѻ), i.e. it automatically begins to walk and carry cargo when powered by energy released from ATP. Here, we see examples of the term “auto” functioning, in accordance with the principle of inertia, in a workable manner, in the sense of Nikola Tesla’s “I am an automaton with the power of movement” (1900), as a preferable upgrade to all “self” terminology usages.
In terminology reform, self terminology reform, or “self terminology upgrades”, refers to the noted finding that the use of the prefix self-, e.g. self-driven, or suffix -self, e.g. itself or oneself, as pointed out by Karl Pearson (1892) is a violation of the principle of inertia, therefore by using related terms such as self-motion, self-organization, self-learn, etc., one is in conceptual violation of one of the laws of nature, according to which inertia neutral terms such as "auto" are preferred. [1]

I am an automaton endowed with power of movement, which merely responds to external stimuli beating upon my sense organs.”
Nikola Tesla (1900), “The Problem of Increasing Human Energy”


In c.600BC, Buddhism thinkers, in their concept of “anatta” (Ѻ), developed the premise that the self or soul does NOT exist; which contrasts with Hinduism, which asserts that the atman (self, soul) exists.
There is an inherent, subtle, and difficult to detect error-filled red-flag evident whenever a writer uses the term "self", e.g. "I am going to do this myself", or prefix "self-", e.g. "can a system be self-organizing?" (Ashby, 1962), in argument, per reason that the the premise of a self as the source of motion is a violation of a principle of inertia and in term the first law of motion; the following correct statements testify to this:
“No ‘thing’ whatever can be moved by its self, but its motion is effected through another. There is no other force.”
Leonardo Da Vinci (1490), notebook writings
“No thing starts moving until it is pushed or pulled.”
— Kimberly Bradley (2005), Forces Make Things Move (pg. 6) (kids: aged 5-9) (Ѻ)
One not keen to the principle of inertia land the first law of motion, accordingly, will tend to produced statements and arguments not in accordance with the laws of motion of things, such is evidenced in the writings of, creationism scientists, such as Christopher Langan (2002), who uses the prefix “self-” 13 times in his abstract alone, e.g. self-configuring, self-configuration, self-containing, self-characterized, self-definition, etc., to promote his god theory based self-motion agenda. [5]
Auto-motion | Self-motion
One can ask, to clarify the matter, do the following three CH-based animate things, which are smaller versions of humans, as carbon-based animate things, have a "self"?

CH-based Animate Thing

Retinal | C20H28O | Light-powered
Retinal (bending molecule)
Retinal bending gif

DTA | C14H10S2 | Heat-powered
DTA (walking molecule)
DTA walking gif

AQ | C14H8O2 | Heat-powered
AQ (carrying molecule)
AQ carrying
When, as we can say correctly, the retinal is lighted or the DTA or AQ is heated, each enters into a state of "automotion" rather than self-motion. This logic is evident in the writings of Tesla:
“To me, the universe is simply a great machine which never came into being and never will end. The human being is no exception to the natural order. Man, like the universe, is a machine. Nothing enters our minds or determines our actions which is not directly or indirectly a response to stimuli beating upon our sense organs from without. Owing to the similarity of our construction and the sameness of our environment, we respond in like manner to similar stimuli, and from the concordance of our reactions, understanding is born. In the course of ages, mechanisms of infinite complexity are developed, but what we call 'soul' or 'spirit,' is nothing more than the sum of the functionings of the body. When this functioning ceases, the 'soul' or the 'spirit' ceases likewise.”
— Nikola Tesla (1935), “A Machine to End War”
Here, Tesla, in stead of claiming that he is a "self-moving" thing, which violates the laws of motion, correctly, says that he his an "auto-maton" stimulated into motion by sensory forces, external to his being or mind. The following is a related quote:
“Possibly ‘auto-learn’, akin to ‘auto-mobile’ or ‘auto-matic’, is a physico-chemically neutral term upgrade to ‘self-learn’, the latter of which being a violation of the principle of inertia; similar to the way auto-didactic is preferable to self-education.”
— Libb Thims (2017), mental wake up note, on self terminology reform, arisen while ruminating on the credentiality insecurities of Sam Harris, salient in his 2009 heated ‘atheist vs atheist’ exchange with Philip Ball (Ѻ), which brought to mind that quote [by name] of the premise that “nothing can be learned by a professor that cannot be better learned by books”, 1:17PM Jun 10
Here, we see, via the Tesla and Thims examples, that "auto" is a preferable terminology upgrade to "self", when functionable. We can say correctly that one can write an auto-existography (or autobiography, in bioism speak), but not a self-existography.
The following are related quotes:

“That when a thing lies still, unless somewhat else stir it, it will lie still forever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But that when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat else stay it, though the reason be the same, namely, that no thing can change it self, is not so easily assented to. For men measure, not only other men, but all other things, by themselves; and because they find themselves subject after motion to pain, and lassitude, think everything else grows weary of motion, and seeks repose of its own accord; little considering, whether it be not some other motion, wherein that desire of rest they find in themselves, consistent.”
Thomas Hobbes (1651), Leviathan (§2: On Imagination) (pg. 3)

“There is, for example, the principle of inertia, the statement that no physical corpuscle need be conceived as changing its motion except in the presence of other corpuscles, that there is no need of attributing to it any power of self-determination. There are probably those who think some power of self-determination must be ascribed to the elementary organic corpuscle, but this seems very doubtful.”
Karl Pearson (1892), The Grammar of Science

“The adjective [self-organization] is, if used loosely, ambiguous, and if used precisely, self-contradictory.”
Ross Ashby (1961) [2]

“Can a system be self-organizing? The answer is no. No system can permanently have the property that it changes properties.”
Ross Ashby (1962) [3]

“No organism reproduces itself. The only thing that ever has had such a claim made for it was the phoenix.”
Ross Ashby (1962),“The Self-Reproducing System” [4]

1. Pearson, Karl. (1892). The Grammar of Science (pg. #). Adam and Charles Black, 1900.
2. Dyson, George. (1997). Darwin Among the Machines (pg. 175-76). De Capo Press.
3. Ross Ashby (quotations) – George Washington University.
4. Ashby, W. Ross. (1962). “The Self-Reproducing System”, in: Aspects of the Theory of Artificial Intelligence (editor: C.A. Muses) (pgs. 9-18). Plenum Press; in: Mechanisms of Intelligence (pgs. 75-83). Epiphany Society.
5. Langan, Christopher. (2002). “The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: a New Kind of Reality” (pdf),

TDics icon ns

More pages