Superorganisms...

[IDMclean]

Not everyone is going to agree and those that don't need to express their opinons to get a good debate as to the theory, one of which above is not comprehendable and similar in lines with UFOs' being called aeroplanes.

:)

 

Not everyone has to agree, that is far from implicit in the scientific method. Hypothesis is what this would be called. A hypothesis is what it sounds like, similar in nature to hypography, or hyposaline. "Hypo" That is below or preceding, "Thesis" body.

 

Theory is formed after the core ontology has been expermentially established (or dashed) for the Hypothesis. At which point the thesis can be formed and the theory can be drawn. With repeated experimentation to satisfaction one can come to the hyperthesis, or the Conclusion.

 

This process mimics or is mimiced by, literature. With a beginning, middle and end. One might relagate it to 5 steps, in which case there are steps between forming the exposition, the rising action, climax, falling action and denouement. Kinda appropiate that science would follow dramatic structure, given how epic some of the things it address are.

 

All in all this is part and parcel of the dissertation and peer review process.

 

So I would ask that you be a little less hypocritical (below critical) in your assertions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now onto the main discussion.

 

What we are talking about here is the distinction between a system and a life form, of which there are not so clear boundries. In my personal parlance the distinction between a life form and a system are very fine. A person is a pattern, not the meat body, but the whole pattern (function) that emerges from the form. That meets the criteria for life.

 

A conventional definition

 

Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, scientists generally accept that the biological manifestation of life exhibits the following phenomena:

 

1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to cool off.

2. Organization: Being composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.

3. Metabolism: Production of energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

4. Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter. The particular species begins to multiply and expand as the evolution continues to flourish.

5. Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.

6. Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.

7. Reproduction: The ability to produce new organisms. Reproduction can be the division of one cell to form two new cells. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from at least two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

 

Source: Life

 

Of which a society meets the criteria. Just some fuel for the fire.

[Boerseun]

Would a colony on Mars, say, be counted as the increase of the organism's range, or the organism procreating, like termites flying off after rain to found new colonies, or 'organisms'?

 

If the human globe-spanning 'superorganism' is indeed such, then our missions to other planets might have a much deeper cause than simply 'science'... maybe we're about to spawn!

 

But then, again, the individual (much like in the ant scenario) won't know that he's part of a bigger organism, much like a cell in your thumb won't know that it's part of a human. So what payoff would the individual get for the 'organism' spawning?

 

Much like the pleasure of an orgasm ensures the survival of the species (so that the animals will go back to do it again for short-term pleasure), so can the exploration of outer space and the eventual colonization (procreation of the 'organism') be popularized and turned into high-tech entertainment, so that the individuals in the organism will gain a highly pleasurable short-term benefit out of it. The sighs of amazement you heard around the televisions around the world in 1969 when Neil Armstrong and co landed on the moon was the collective sound of an entire superorganism having a mind-blowing orgasm. The collective species is well aware of whats to come, and the individuals in the worker caste are being prepared and groomed for it through popular entertainment, sci-fi, etc. - so the day when the actual spawning happens, nobody'll be too much surprised!

 

...this is edging ever closer to Strange Claims, but it makes for quite a supportable fantasy, dontcha think?

[LJP07]

It is quite obvious that social *groups* display all of the standard mechanisms described for individual organism: they grow, reproduce, evolve, have "genetic" mechanisms--cultural knowledge as well as the dna of the individual components--, compete for resources with other superorganisms, etc.

 

1. All living things share the same characteristics of life.

 

2. Therefore, all living things will share these characteristics.

 

3. Hence, characteristics will be shared between different species.

 

4. Ultimately, the connection has always existed.

 

Based on this it's actually common sense. But to refer to Humans as a superorganism in relation to ants is beyond truth. Humans can determine their actions and wars certainly aren't as a result of needing to do this action. For an ant, they have to do certian actions to survive as with most animal species. However, humans know right from wrong and they can determine what action they wish to take if any.

[Boerseun]

Prolu, you're missing the point here completely. We're speculating, and hypothesizing. We're not claiming anything here to be the truth.

 

You want to tell me that paying your taxes isn't feeding the queen ant?

 

In drawing similarities between superorganisms like ant and termite colonies, and our own civilization, we might just learn something of ourselves.

 

This is speculation, however. Just keep that in mind. It doesn't need refutation.