> 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.
I don't want to defend this superorganism view explicitly here, but
there are more analogies than Paulo indicates when one interpretes
the data carefully.
>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).
Cells have indeed identical genetic potential, but this is differently
expressed. Phenotypically this comes down to a colony of very
different cells working together, and could be compared to human
individuals putting together their specific skills.
But you may be right that the motivation for cooperation is
different: cells are identical and their 'altruism' is perfectly
explainable from a genetic point of view. Motivation for cooperation
in humans is somewhat more complicated.
> 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.
I would doubt that differentiation of body cells is synchronous. Some
cells keep differentiating life long starting from stem cells (e.g.
blood cells).
> And one could continue. Society members are free in space while cells
> are not.
Blood cells, immunocytes travel around all the time. They could be
compared to human truckers and human security guards.
> Body cells ABSOLUTELY depend on the body to exist, whilst society
> members do not (absolutely).
Put me anywhere without other humans and I've got no chance.
Cells can be cultured outside the body.
> 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.
We first should try to pinpoint the true analogies and true
differences. I think this can only be done properly by multidisplinar
approach. As a biologist I know too little of sociology, ... and vice
versa. Going on on our own leads to erroneous statements.
PRNCYB-L (or DARWIN-L) offer such forums for interdisciplinary
cooperation.
> 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?)
>
> WHICH are the facts and events he/she/it takes conscience about?
>
> COULD we communicate with he/she/it?
> Thinking downwards - will it be the case that in
> each of our (brain) cells resides an individual locus of
> mind/conscience?
J. Consciousness Studies for an example addresses these questions. It
is clear from the discussions going on in this journal that
we will discuss these items for many more years, decades, ... There
are as many opinions as there are authors, and the opposition between
AI people and philosophers is thorough.
> 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.
This would be difficult: it is like a cell saying that it will kill
the multicellular colony it lives in and depends upon.
Mario Vaneechoutte
Univ. Hosp. Ghent
Mario Vaneechoutte
Laboratory Bacteriology & Virology
Blok A, De Pintelaan 185
University Hospital Ghent
Belgium 9000 Ghent
Tel: +32 9 240 36 92
Fax: +32 9 240 36 59
E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be