I wish I could give a clear and simple answer to this question, but the
truth is I don't know. In general, one can state that both the object or
component systems Ai and the metasystem A' are control systems. This means
they have sensors, producing a perception of their environment (which
includes other component systems in the encompassing system), a goal or set
of evaluation criteria which they try to achieve, and effectors, which
allow them to act on their environment so that the perception comes closer
to the goal. The difference between metasystem and object system is that
the actions of the metasystem directly affect the goals of the object
systems, while the opposite is not true. By their effect on the environment
the object system do affect the perception, and therefore the action of the
metasystem, but not its goal.
>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.
This is an important difference. However, in my model of social metasystem
transitions (see my paper with D.T.. Campbell
file://is1.vub.ac.be/pub/projects/Principia_Cybernetica/WF-issue/Social_MST.
txt), the main force leading to an integrated social metasystem is just
that certain "memes", (units of culture), would be distributed more
homogeneously, and thus become a kind of universal, shared ethics or system
of norms. This would determine the shared set of goals or evaluation
criteria that determine the metasystem. The presence of a shared set of
memes does not imply that all individuals would become homogenous in all
other respects. On the contrary, integration on the level of high level
goals facilitates differentiation on the level of means (actions,
expertise, division of labor).
>Bodies crucially depend on the genetic
>homogeneity of their cells, whilst societies rely heavily in the
>emergent variety of their members.
This is not correct. A similar phenomenon of integration + differentiation
as the one I sketched can be seen in multicellular organisms: although the
different cells share the same set of genes, these genes are expressed in
very different ways in the different tissues and organs. The variety of
different cell types and cell behaviors is what makes a multicellular
organism so complex and efficient. This seems wholly similar to the
division of labor, diversity of ideas, and specialisation seen in highly
devloped societies, as compared to primitive societies, where there are
just a few rigidly defined roles, and practically no differentiation in
knowledge or ideas.
>And one could continue. Society members are free in space while cells
>are not.
This is only relatively so. First, many cells can move inside the body
(e.g. blood cells) or even outside of it (e.g. sperm). Second, if you
conside the biosphere to be the space in which the social superorganism
exists, then the members of society are restricted to that thin layer that
covers the Earth.
Of course, you could extend society into space, but once the distance
becomes really large, the limited speed of light will make that distant
segments of the superorganism will lose contact and coordination. E.g. it
takes 9 years for a signal to travel to the nearest star and back. An
organism in which cells would need 9 years to communicate with other cells
would not be called an organism anymore.
>Body cells ABSOLUTELY depend on the body to exist, whilst society
>members do not (absolutely).
Or at least not yet... (for a humorous counterexample, see the infamous
Wired parody on superorganisms:
http://www.hotwired.com/wired/4.04/features/viermenhouk.html).
It seems that in the beginning stages the cells in multicellular aggregates
could survive independently. There are famous examples of protozoans who
form colonies which have all the appearances of multicellular organisms,
but which in times of scarcity can again separate and look for food on
their own.
>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?)
The "superorganism"! Of course, this is a very abstract and not very
satisfying answer, but it seems difficult for us as as mere subsystems to
say anything more concrete. How do you think would a cell imagine the
organism it belongs to?
>WHICH are the facts and events he/she/it takes conscience about?
All the facts that humans and their observation and information processing
systems become aware of are available as information to the superorganism.
However, it is likely that only a relatively small set of essential ideas
will abstracted out of that mass of data in order to be processed. Our
brain is not aware of all the signals sent and received by individual
cells, but does have awareness of general states of affairs such as hunger
or cold.
At this stage, it seems too early to specify in detail which these
essential ideas will be that the superbrain would pay attention to. It
seems likely, though, that the ideas of the superbrain will be much more
complex and abstract than anything we could comprehend with our brains.
>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?
Communication: yes, but only in a very limited sense. Like I said, the
signals sent by individual cells are somehow integrated into a collective
signal that reaches the brain. Similarly, the brain sends signals that
affects specific types of cells (e.g. it triggers the production of
hormones which stimulate activity in certain organs). It is likely that we
too could send information to the superbrain and that it could send
information to us. However, this information will be processed at such
different levels of complexity and abstraction, that it is difficult to
interpret this communication as anything like a conversation between equal
partners.
>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!
The essence of a metasystem transition is just that freedom is augmented by
imposing certain constraints. I believe I have more freedom to do what I
want in our present, highly integrated and differentiated, society than if
I would live on my own in the jungle. If I would live in the jungle, I
would be under a constant pressure to find food and water, avoid predators,
find shelter etc. There would be very little freedom to engage in poetry,
discuss philosophy, study science, or just eat, drink or relax whenever I
feel like.
Society has created this freedom by controlling a number of other
phenomena, e.g. by constraining the freedom of predators and bacteria to
kill me, by constraining the freedom of fields, animals, factories and
organizations not to produce the things I need, and by constraining the
freedom of other individuals to profit from other's work without doing
anything in return. This means I have to follow a number of rules, such as
abstain from stealing and killing, do some work in order to earn a living,
and abstain from driving through a red light.
You might say that these rules are imposed by the superorganism, and that
they limit my freedom. But I am more than willing to give up my freedom to
break those rules in order to gain the freedom from all the natural
constraints I mentioned earlier. I don't see any contradiction between the
superorganism idea and your statement that "social interaction should be a
TOOL to enlarge individual power and freedom or, if one prefers, individual
survival and development". Multicellular organisms similarly evolved as a
tool to augment individual cells' power to survive and develop.
________________________________________________________________________
Dr. Francis Heylighen, Systems Researcher fheyligh@vnet3.vub.ac.be
PESP, Free University of Brussels, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel +32-2-6292525; Fax +32-2-6292489; http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/HEYL.html