Why is an organism a life form but not a society?

[ryan]

Comparing Organisms to Societies

- Societies and organisms are both made of humans and cells respectively. Humans and cells reproduce in order for their respective systems to grow and replicate. Cells replicate asexually and sexually for the multicellular organism, while humans replicate sexually for the society.

- There are nonliving structures and spaces between cells in an organism and between humans in a society.

- Organisms and societies require energy and resources to function and acquire it from their respective components, cells and humans.

- Cells and humans have "instructions" for their respective systems. In cells, DNA determines how the organism is going behave in its environment. In humans, ideologies determine how a society is going to behave in its environment.

- One cell or human that hurts the function of its respective system is usually "dealt" with.

- Organisms and societies evolve. Mutations in the DNA of asexual cells can change how an organism functions, and an ideological change in a human can also change how a society functions. The success of evolving organisms and evolving societies depends largely on their environments. For organisms the environmental pressure is the natural environment and the effects of mankind. For societies the environmental pressures are war, global economy, natural environment, etc. The gene expressions in a cell determine how successful the organism will be in its environment, and the ideologies of people determine how successful the society will function in its environment.

Finally, if there can be a single consciousness, or at least the illusion of a single consciousness, from multiple organisms that make up our bodies, then why couldn't there be a collective consciousness? This would be something like Carl Jungs' collective unconscious, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious . But I am actually going a little beyond and saying that the entire society would think at singular level like we do. This is also similar to the Gaia hypothesis but on a smaller scale.

So why is an organism a life form but not a society?

 

[DBT]

Some have described organisms as colonies of cells cooperating (unconsciously) to construct an organism. Cancer cells being the rogues that go off and do their own thing. Some cancer cells (Helac cells), trancend the Hayflick limit and become immortal (if kept in a culture).

 

[untermensche]

...Finally, if there can be a single consciousness, or at least the illusion of a single consciousness, from multiple organisms that make up our bodies, then why couldn't there be a collective consciousness?...

A person is conscious because a brain evolved to create consciousness and that brain maintains a certain level of structural integrity.

Human society did not evolve to create a consciousness, at least we have no evidence of this.

Consciousness must flow from a mechanism specifically "designed" to create that consciousness. Evolution is simply a way to achieve design without a designer.

You would have to propose the specific mechanism by which a society could be conscious.

 

[bilby]

...Finally, if there can be a single consciousness, or at least the illusion of a single consciousness, from multiple organisms that make up our bodies, then why couldn't there be a collective consciousness?...

A person is conscious because a brain evolved to create consciousness and that brain maintains a certain level of structural integrity.

Human society did not evolve to create a consciousness, at least we have no evidence of this.

Consciousness must flow from a mechanism specifically "designed" to create that consciousness. Evolution is simply a way to achieve design without a designer.

You would have to propose the specific mechanism by which a society could be conscious.

This is errant nonsense.

Nothing evolves to create anything. Evolution is purposeless. Humans evolved consciousness. But nothing ever evolved 'to create' anything - there is no possible mechanism for this, and it flies in the face of absolutely everything that is known about the mechanism of evolution.

There may be good reasons why humans evolved consciousness and society did not (yet); but design (or even "design") cannot possibly have anything to do with it.

At every step in evolution, changes are immediately non-harmful, or they die out. There is no forward looking plan; a large brain may be necessary for consciousness, but if so, it cannot have evolved for the purpose of consciousness; how could consciousness that didn't yet exist improve the reproductive success of animals with slightly larger (but not yet large enough to be conscious) brains?



Also, as an aside, how do you know that society isn't conscious? Do you imagine that a neuron could ever be aware of the consciousness of the brain of which it is a part?

 

[ryan]

Some have described organisms as colonies of cells cooperating (unconsciously) to construct an organism. Cancer cells being the rogues that go off and do their own thing. Some cancer cells (Helac cells), trancend the Hayflick limit and become immortal (if kept in a culture).

Yeah, so if we are just an organization of many more fundamental organisms, then what makes us a life form anymore than a society is?

 

[ryan]

...Finally, if there can be a single consciousness, or at least the illusion of a single consciousness, from multiple organisms that make up our bodies, then why couldn't there be a collective consciousness?...

A person is conscious because a brain evolved to create consciousness and that brain maintains a certain level of structural integrity.

Human society did not evolve to create a consciousness, at least we have no evidence of this.

Do you mean consciousness or qualia (or some other kind of mental aspect of consciousness) because I don't see what the difference between the physical interpretation of a human consciousness and a society's "consciousness". If you are talking about the mind, then there isn't much I can say about that other than it's not recognized scientifically.

Consciousness must flow from a mechanism specifically "designed" to create that consciousness. Evolution is simply a way to achieve design without a designer.

We designed society to function like a consciousness.

You would have to propose the specific mechanism by which a society could be conscious.

Define the "consciousness" that you are using.

 

[DBT]

Some have described organisms as colonies of cells cooperating (unconsciously) to construct an organism. Cancer cells being the rogues that go off and do their own thing. Some cancer cells (Helac cells), trancend the Hayflick limit and become immortal (if kept in a culture).

Yeah, so if we are just an organization of many more fundamental organisms, then what makes us a life form anymore than a society is?

Not sure about what your'e asking...''more'' in what sense?

 

[Duke Leto]

Why is an organism a life form but not a society?

Because you obviously don't understand the fallacies of composition and division and want to keep arguing in favor of New Age horseshit.

 

[ryan]

Yeah, so if we are just an organization of many more fundamental organisms, then what makes us a life form anymore than a society is?

Not sure about what your'e asking...''more'' in what sense?

Do we meet the definition of life more accurately than a society does?

 

[ryan]

Why is an organism a life form but not a society?

Because you obviously don't understand the fallacies of composition and division and want to keep arguing in favor of New Age horseshit.

Knowledge evolves constantly. You can't just say it's s*** without saying why if you actually want me to believe you.

What kind of response is this if it is not to troll?

 

[DBT]

Not sure about what your'e asking...''more'' in what sense?

Do we meet the definition of life more accurately than a society does?

'Society' is a collection of individuals forming a group in order to gain the benefits of being a part of a group. As individuals, they are still able to function independently from society....as with some species of single cell organisms. Yet these are all examples of life and íts evolutionary pathways and 'strategies'

 

[ryan]

Do we meet the definition of life more accurately than a society does?

'Society' is a collection of individuals forming a group in order to gain the benefits of being a part of a group. As individuals, they are still able to function independently from society....as with some species of single cell organisms. Yet these are all examples of life and íts evolutionary pathways and 'strategies'

Ah, interesting, an individual human has the "inner" capacity to adapt to a nonsocial environment whereas a cell doesn't. That's good enough for me.

 

[DBT]

'Society' is a collection of individuals forming a group in order to gain the benefits of being a part of a group. As individuals, they are still able to function independently from society....as with some species of single cell organisms. Yet these are all examples of life and íts evolutionary pathways and 'strategies'

Ah, interesting, an individual human has the "inner" capacity to adapt to a nonsocial environment whereas a cell doesn't. That's good enough for me.

Certain species of single cell organisms can function independently. Human 'HeLa' cells are virtually immortal and have been sustained in labs for many decades, dividing well beyond the Hayflick division limit.

 

[ryan]

Ah, interesting, an individual human has the "inner" capacity to adapt to a nonsocial environment whereas a cell doesn't. That's good enough for me.

Certain species of single cell organisms can function independently. Human 'HeLa' cells are virtually immortal and have been sustained in labs for many decades, dividing well beyond the Hayflick division limit.

Okay, I think I know what you are getting at. The lone HeLa cell is like an asexual reproductive human that has "figured out" how to adapt in some other environment. So maybe I will retract my retraction.

 

[Duke Leto]

Because you obviously don't understand the fallacies of composition and division and want to keep arguing in favor of New Age horseshit.

Knowledge evolves constantly. You can't just say it's s*** without saying why if you actually want me to believe you.

What kind of response is this if it is not to troll?

The appropriate response to one who has proven impervious to argument.

 

[ryan]

Knowledge evolves constantly. You can't just say it's s*** without saying why if you actually want me to believe you.

What kind of response is this if it is not to troll?

The appropriate response to one who has proven impervious to argument.

The timing of this accusation couldn't be worse.

 

[Valjean]

The categories that serve well in day to day life become less clear when examined closely. Organism/non-organism, life/non-life, conscious/non-conscious. These are gradations; a spectrum.

Beehive/ant nest/termite colony -- superorganisms with detachable 'cells'.
Slime molds -- amoeboids that can coalesce into crawling 'blobs', fungus-like creatures, or plant-like creatures, depending on conditions.
Portuguese Man O' War -- four different species of polyp come together and specializing to form what appears to be individual organisms.

Life organizes itself in overlapping hierarchies. Boundaries between these aren't always clear.

 

[ryan]

The categories that serve well in day to day life become less clear when examined closely. Organism/non-organism, life/non-life, conscious/non-conscious. These are gradations; a spectrum.

Beehive/ant nest/termite colony -- superorganisms with detachable 'cells'.
Slime molds -- amoeboids that can coalesce into crawling 'blobs', fungus-like creatures, or plant-like creatures, depending on conditions.
Portuguese Man O' War -- four different species of polyp come together and specializing to form what appears to be individual organisms.

Life organizes itself in overlapping hierarchies. Boundaries between these aren't always clear.

Understandable, yet science/biology still attempts to give definitions to such things. What side of the grey area should a society be on? We have to choose if we are going to be consistent with biological definitions.

 

[bilby]

The categories that serve well in day to day life become less clear when examined closely. Organism/non-organism, life/non-life, conscious/non-conscious. These are gradations; a spectrum.

Beehive/ant nest/termite colony -- superorganisms with detachable 'cells'.
Slime molds -- amoeboids that can coalesce into crawling 'blobs', fungus-like creatures, or plant-like creatures, depending on conditions.
Portuguese Man O' War -- four different species of polyp come together and specializing to form what appears to be individual organisms.

Life organizes itself in overlapping hierarchies. Boundaries between these aren't always clear.

Understandable, yet science/biology still attempts to give definitions to such things. What side of the grey area should a society be on? We have to choose if we are going to be consistent with biological definitions.

The problem is that we cannot be consistent with biological definitions, because our definitions establish boundaries, while reality does not.

It's not just biology; we can classify light into wavelengths by giving ranges of similar wavelength names like 'Red' or 'Yellow'; but the line between red and yellow is not a characteristic of light, it is a purely arbitrary boundary. We can even try to get around this by adding an 'in between' category, and dividing the same light into 'Red', 'Orange' and 'Yellow', but rather than solving our problem, we have doubled it - we had one arbitrary boundary between red and yellow, and now we have two - between red and orange; and between orange and yellow.

The same is true with the categories we impose on biological systems; plant/animal, unicellular/multicellular, alive/not alive; they are all useful as long as you don't try to definitively classify an entity that is close to the boundary.

There is a choice about where we place the arbitrary grey areas, and so the side of the divide that any object falls is determined by our definitions.

In essence, a thing is conscious if we extend the definition of consciousness to encompass that thing, and if we do not, it is not. It makes no sense to ask 'Is X conscious'; We must instead ask 'Is it sensible for our definition of consciousness to extend far enough to include X?'. The answer lies in our purpose in classifying to begin with - classifications are either useful or they are not, and whether they are depends on the use to which we intend to put them.

 

[ryan]

Understandable, yet science/biology still attempts to give definitions to such things. What side of the grey area should a society be on? We have to choose if we are going to be consistent with biological definitions.

The problem is that we cannot be consistent with biological definitions, because our definitions establish boundaries, while reality does not.

It's not just biology; we can classify light into wavelengths by giving ranges of similar wavelength names like 'Red' or 'Yellow'; but the line between red and yellow is not a characteristic of light, it is a purely arbitrary boundary. We can even try to get around this by adding an 'in between' category, and dividing the same light into 'Red', 'Orange' and 'Yellow', but rather than solving our problem, we have doubled it - we had one arbitrary boundary between red and yellow, and now we have two - between red and orange; and between orange and yellow.

The same is true with the categories we impose on biological systems; plant/animal, unicellular/multicellular, alive/not alive; they are all useful as long as you don't try to definitively classify an entity that is close to the boundary.

There is a choice about where we place the arbitrary grey areas, and so the side of the divide that any object falls is determined by our definitions.

In essence, a thing is conscious if we extend the definition of consciousness to encompass that thing, and if we do not, it is not. It makes no sense to ask 'Is X conscious'; We must instead ask 'Is it sensible for our definition of consciousness to extend far enough to include X?'. The answer lies in our purpose in classifying to begin with - classifications are either useful or they are not, and whether they are depends on the use to which we intend to put them.

But even in taxonomy, there are defined boundaries that on the surface seem almost perfect such as classifying something as either an animal or plant (although I remember that there were at least 2 organisms that biologists still argue about), but for the most part, the definition between plant and animal is obvious and meets all of the common criteria.

Let's say they discover a new species. And let's say that this species nicely fits into a specific genus. Then it is even more obvious whether it is a plant or animal, and then it is even more obvious that it is a form of life.

Now, I posted the OP because I feel like it is not very close to a grey area of what constitutes life. There are many striking similarities between multicellular organisms and societies.