> Paulo Garrido wrote:
>
>> 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.
Once again...these are not really analogies in the sense of analogical
models, they are metaphors.
>
>>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).
>
What bearing does the nature of the body's genetic material have on:
1) Human phenotype?
2) Any thing OTHER than human organisms?
> 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.
Please see Oyama's book on the "Ontogeny of information". She does a
good job of sorting out the issues here. You are clearly bringing us
into nature/nurture issues where they have questionable application, if
any at all. Also see Kampis' book on component systems (see homepage
for reference). He does a good job of explaining why, even in the
organism, the developmental process is not describable in terms of the
dynamics of gene expression alone and why context dependence and
contingency make this a deep problem.
>
>> 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
I hope the value of seeing these as metaphors rather than anaological models
becomes clear as the discussion entangles. Also the futility of ANY
reductionist approach to these issues should also be becoming clear.
Respectfully,
Don Mikulecky, http://views.vcu.edu/complex