2.One should be careful in ascertaining to the so called
superbrain, properties of human brains. And in general, in analogically
viewing society as a body organism. One may observe, for example that:
Elements of bodies have a totally homogeneous genetic material. Elements
of societies have only a quasi-homogeneous genetic material (1/1000 mean
difference between individuals).
Body cells result from meiosis, while
eggs of individuals result from mitosis followed by fusion. Body cells
are no more than clones of an egg, quasi-synchronously differenciated by
the control of gene expression. Society members are irreducibly
different and their development and differenciation is much more
asyncronous and hazaphardous.
Bodies crucially depend on the genetic
homogeneity of their cells, whilst societies rely heavily in the
emergent variety of their members.
And one could continue. Society members are free in space while cells
are not.
Body cells ABSOLUTELY depend on the body to exist, whilst society
members do not (absolutely).
What I would like to know is to which point these and other differences
limit the scope of the evident analogies and are the expression of
irreducibly new phenomena.
To put in another way. The body of an individual is an extremely =
connected group of entities, genetically orchestrated into a very =
coherent material system. Clearly, as you point out, societies, the =
Internet, etc. Do not have an equivalent developmental conductor. =
Rather, they are disembodied collections of embodied entities. They lack =
the sort of tightly fit developmental , coherent organization that we =
call a body. Because of this, they lack an essential circularity that =
living and cognitive systems have: through development they are able to =
pragmatically interact with an environment with repercursions to their =
OWN bodies. Natural selection is based on this ability to explore =
phenotypical alternatives through genetically encoded information, and =
if one follows a Piagetian view of cognition, likewise, developmental =
events have specific somatic repercursions in one's body, which dictate =
how cognition is early on orchestrated into some direction. Since =
societies and especially the internet do not have this selective =
semantic closure, its actions have no direct repercursions to a body and =
thus selection is largely eliminated.
Now, having said this, I should add that I believe these attributes are =
a question of degree. Morphogenesis is genetically regulated, and the =
phenotype developed is tightly coupled. Consciousness seems to arise =
from a collection of neurons that can be very different, and whose =
genetic grip is less evident in the function of the brain. Societies are =
not genetically coherent, but to a certain extent they also suffer =
repercursions of its actions from an environment, though the demise of a =
society does not require the elimination of its components as the death =
of a living organism does. Finally, regarding the internet, and the =
super-brain and all of that, I still need to see any sort of development =
and selection process that could give it the status of the next =
evolutionary step.=20
2. To any human brain we ascertain an individual locus of
mind/conscience. There seems to be no reason that the same be made to
the superbrain. Now the questions
WHO is that one which eventually recognizes him/her/itself as having a
brain made up of interactions and processing of the human brains? (The
spirit of the human species?)
Well, to play devil's advocate here, if we are to follow any sort of =
Pask/Minsky theory, the human brain also does not have an individual =
consciousness but is rather a society of agents. In any case, whether we =
have one I or
several I's, its/their existence is highly dependent on its/their body =
which implements it/them. Whatever actions the brain pursues, they will =
have repercursions in its embodiment. Only (fairly) coherent brain/body =
arrangements tend to survive. The clinical cases where such arrangements =
become incoherent serve precisely to prove their inability to survive.
3.
IF human society is an organism (in the autopoietic sense) and has a
(the super) brain
THEN most probably we should KILL such being.
Because, societies, or better, the social interaction should be a TOOL
to enlarge individual power and freedom or, if one prefers, individual
survival and development. There is no point in maintaining a
society if it is not that. If a society becomes an organism, chances
are that individual power and freedom are diminished: to exist as such
an organism must limit the degrees of freedom of its components. And in
the case of human societies - the components are us!
Only one type of
autopoietic system should be allowed to emerge as a result of social
interactions: the one that enlarges individual power and freedom - for
all the individuals. Maybe such a system is possible if it is built in
the emotional domain of love, corresponding to the goal of development.
If it is not the case, it should be destroyed. Otherwise, we may see
ourselves with no survival or comfort problems ... and with no reason to
live.
I like what you say very much. However, no society can exist that does =
not constrain individuals one way or another. We all know that freedom =
comes with constraint. In one sense, a loner in some cabin in Idaho is =
as free as can be. The liberties society may give you are of a different =
kind. For example, you no longer have to protect yourself since you have =
the police and the army to do that for you, you don't have to worry =
about when to hunt and when to farm because there is always the local =
supermarket. But all this also entails a loss of freedom (which we for =
the most part gladly take) as you no longer can take a day off when you =
please, you have to pay taxes, use the roads the government builds, =
receive massified communication, etc. It is then, to a degree, =
legitimate to make the usual argument of the society as a body. Certain =
groups of people become specialized in different aspects of the group's =
necessities. Just like a liver cell has no "freedom" to become an =
retinal cell, a garbage collector has really no freedom to become a =
society's president. The question of which society to kill then becomes =
the age-old question of how much centralism or self-organization one =
desires of society.
kind of selective pressures, if any, are societies and super-organisms =
subjected to? Is selection an essential mechanism to understand =
super-organisms, or is self-organization enough? And if this is the =
case, can we really call them super-organisms?
Sauda=E7=F5es cordiais,
Luis Rocha