Francis:
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.
Well, but you still need to identify in the society mechanisms for =
expression, developement, and selection. In living organisms different =
genes are expressed into different cells leading to specialization. Yes =
in society we do have specialization, but now try to identify what is =
the equivalent chain to genetic expression in living organisms. Can you =
backtrack from specialization and define the universal mechanism that =
develops social individuals into some specialization, through a =
developmental chain FROM some pool of encoded memory tokens whose =
variation is the engine of selection? What is the genotype, what is the =
phenotype, and what is the process that produces one from the other?=20
I am not saying that you cannot do this, I am saying that these things =
must be defined for the super-organism metaphor to be sustained. For =
instance, I can see education as a process of development leading to =
individual differentiation, but this process is hardly as directed as =
genetic controlled development (thank god!). If a kid is to be educated =
(developed) into being an engineer, is the engineer the phenotype? Is =
the kid the genotype, or is it the "meme" for engineer? If it is the =
"meme", then how do you decode (and subsequently develop) a kid from the =
engineer "meme"?=20
Moreover, there is the question of selection I addressed in an earlier =
post. You need to be much more explicit about what kind of selection (if =
any) are superorganisms subjected to. Is it essential for them as it is =
for life?
I think these questions have to be answered if we are to accept the =
existence of superorganisms. Once the memory tokens (genes), their =
decoding mechanism, their developmental processes, and selection =
mechanisms have been identified, there will still be yet another =
question to address: how tightly interrelated and orchestrated are all =
these processes? A liver cell cannot (even at an earlier stage of =
development) "decide" to become a pleasure neuron. In most societies, =
people can actually choose to become art historians instead of =
engineers. Is a superorganism less of an organism because of that?
(Paulo)
>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?
It is not satisfying at all! It reminds me of the response I would get =
from nuns in sunday school when I would ask "how can I be sure that god =
exists, why doesn't he show himself to me?", to which they would reply, =
"do you think ants could ever imagine you, even if you try hard to =
explain yourself to them?" The concept of superorganism can only be of =
(scientific) utility if "mere subsystems" can identify and test its =
nature, otherwise it is just another sort of deity.=20
Luis