6 ms·
The higher order unit (e.g. Bee Hive) for the humans is very compelling. But all n-th level units exhibit a pattern that is not immediately evident for the hum
by lucifer 17y ago
The higher order unit (e.g. Bee Hive) for the humans is very compelling. But all n-th level units exhibit a pattern that is not immediately evident for the human group unit.
1 - Body. Every unit has a distinct physically cohesive component, that can symbolically be represented as a Circle.
2 - Nucleus. Every body has a distinct Center. (Queen Bee in the Hive.)
3 - Metabolic Network. Every unit is organized through the means of a metabolic network. (Bees use chemical signals.)
So if there is a 'higher' human, we need to identify these characteristic features. Of course, the cyber utopians would (plausibly) propose that it is machine mediation that will (finally) give rise to the higher human unit.
[edit/add: And Mystics, rejecting the black box model of Mind, would argue that meditation and group formation (e.g. Sufis and the Dance) that activates the higher man.]
- arijo 17y agoInteresting ... Maybe evolution doesn't follow a pattern? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
- lucifer 17y agoEvolution is subservient to mathematics that governs physics. It merely searches the phenotype space, but that space is structured and constrained. (Number governs all.)
- alextp 17y agoFirst, mathematics is the language used to describe physics; it does not at all constrain what physical patterns are possible to express. With a bit of mental work mathematics can represent anything. It is not at all clear that the phenotype space is constrained by simple mathematical patterns (such as "center" as you mentioned). This sounds like religious analogy, not scientific thinking.
- lucifer 17y ago"First, mathematics is the language used to describe physics; it does not at all constrain what physical patterns are possible to express." Mathematics is entirely independent of physics and is not a mere descriptive language. The second statement sounds "religious"; perhaps you can demonstrate a case in point? "It is not at all clear that the phenotype space is constrained by simple mathematical patterns." There was no mention of "simple" in the comment to which you have replied. Simply a statement of the fact that no amount of evolutionary development can give rise to the impossible.