> ----------
> From: Francis Heylighen[SMTP:fheyligh@VNET3.VUB.AC.BE]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 1996 11:16 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list PRNCYB-L
> Subject: Self-organization and selection in the super-organism
>
> I don't see why the superorganism would lack such an embodiment with
> selective consequences. The superorganism's "organs" (cities, factories,
> etc.) and "circuits" (roads, railways, communication channels) do exist =
> in
> a physical environment with which they interact. If a city or building =
> is
> erected on swampy terrain and because of that it becomes ininhabitable, =
> it
> will be abandoned and rebuilt somewhere else. If a communication =
> channel
> uses a part of the electromagnetic spectrum in which there is much
> interference (e.g. because of sun spots), that part of the spectrum will =
> be
> abandoned and a new range chosen.
Yes, no problem with that. It just seems that the meat lies beyond
those manifestations. If cities are merely villages but bigger then we
are done. The analysis is trivial. But as these entities grow, NEW PROCESSES
emerge which no longer map in a clear way to the constitutent parts.
Part of what makes these social structure VERY different from organisms
of the biological kind is the nature of the mappings. The fact that I
just came back from lunch and was effectively "compelled" to get on the
system and check the mail is a form of behavior modification. The
actual medium of communication only partially explains it since If
snail mail were all we had, I'd still do it. But the quality and
intensity of my behavioral response AS WELL AS the new processes...(eg PCP)
which have emerged are more than a mere extra power of communication.
Needs are being filled and relationships established which partly
depend on the technical advances we share, but also there are aspects
which once established, quickly become independent of the particular
way in which they came to be (and might have arisen in lots of other,
different ways)and begin an existence of their own. One obvious
example is our contemplation of this new thing we are part of.
>
> See, the key point here is that you are identifying a selection =
> mechanism for parts of the superorganism, but not of the superorganism =
> as a whole. In biological systems genes stand for traits, but the traits =
> are not selected individually, it is the entire genotype that is =
> propagated from generation to generation. Superorganisms/societies (i =
> don't quite see a distinction here) seem to be immune to selection as =
> whole organisms, which some would say, strips them off their status as =
> an organism.
This is why I brought up Oyama's book earlier. I suggest that specific
mechanisms for most of these things are irrelevant. They develop in a
contextually contingent, oportunistic way, and the mechanism is whatever
happened to work at the moment. It is not necessarily the best (fittest)
nor is its nature as a mechanism what shapes the outcome.
>
> Is it possible actually to talk about superorganisms' extinction =
> (leaving asside planetary extinction)? We often say that some societies =
> ceased to exist, but is it really like biological extinction? For =
> instance, the romans never really disappeared: the pope still lives in =
> Rome, kaisers and tzars popped up all over Europe, latin stil flows, =
> etc. Sure you can call all these things memes, but then we would have to =
> say they are not integrated into a compound "memotype" that is selected =
> as a whole. If memes are selected individually, then the organization =
> they produce is not a coherent organism in the biological sense. It is =
> not selected as a whole.
Yes, the whole comparison breaks down here....I agree!
>
> This is why I don't like the term meme to substitute the terms =
> concept/idea/cultural trait, because, with its genetic metaphor, it =
> seems to ascribe more organization to social behavior than it is =
> actually there. The same thing for superorganism, if selection is not =
> possible for it as a whole, it is actually not yet an organism. Then why =
> not just use the term society?
I agree with that idea. The organism metaphor seems both weak and misleading
at time as you have pointed out.
>
> This is not to say that I do not see parallels between biology a =
> society. I just want to say that caution is in order when we go to such =
> higher level concepts as global awareness, gaia, etc. because they are =
> not that well grounded in what we know from biology. They are metaphors =
> than only work with a high degree of abstraction that many may not be =
> able to buy. I agree with you that one way to establish those notions is =
> to show that they can be more useful than current models, and of course =
> to develop falsifiable hypothesis about the superorganism.
>
> Cheers,
> Luis
Rashevsky also saw RELATIONAL parallels between biology and society.
The point is that they had almost NOTHING to do with mechanism.
We seem to be mainly in agreement!
Best wishes,
Don Mikulecky (http://views.vcu.edu/complex)