Re: super-systems

DON MIKULECKY (MIKULECKY@VCUVAX.BITNET)
Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:59:59 -0400


>> > 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 wrote
> :> > 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.
>>
>
> Don Mickulecky wrote
>> Once again...these are not really analogies in the sense of analogical
>> models, they are metaphors.
>
> You explained the difference between analogy and metaphor.
> However, I didn't find explicit reasons of why the organism -
> superorganism comparison could not be an analogy. Could you explain better?
>
> What if it is only a metaphor. Does it imply that this discussion
> list doesn't make much sense any longer?

It makes a DIFFERENT kind of sense! Metaphors are not models, analogs are.
Models require that a natural system be encoded into a formal system
which we then manipulate (as we are doing in this discussion WITHOUT
the encoding) in order to make predictions about thing we see as
causal events in the natural system (which is the decoding from formal sytstem
to natural system). In the case of analogical models...the formal
system can be relaced by another natural system (since they share the
same formal system as a model) but the encoding and decoding now become
reciprocal. In a metaphor, we only use half the system...eg..the decoding.
In order to use the brain as an analogical model for a super system the super
system would also have to model the brain for us. NO ONE seems to be
saying that!

>
> I wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>
> Don Mickulecky wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I don't see what my writing has to do with the nature/nurture
> discussion. I have no
> problems in agreeing that the phenotype, and especially behaviour, is
> the product of continuous strong interaction between gene and environment and
> thus the or nature/ or nurture discussion as rather useless, but this
> is not at stake here.
> 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

The discussion was about the similarities/differences between super organisms
and organisms. I can't see how it can not involve the developmental issues.
But, I think the metaphor is weak at best, so it is not important!
Best wishes,
Don Mikulecky