PDA

View Full Version : The next being



KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-19, 07:52 AM
Governance, behaviour, government, mankind; at the first sight it may appear a kind of political discussion. It has nothing to do with politics rather to some extent related to creation, evolution, biology and physiology.
My question, in general, is : could mankind be the next building block of being? It is rather more than calling it a question.
You know, cells could be regarded as the building blocks of body organs or body in general,
molecules and atoms could be regarded as the building blocks of cells,
.......
There seems to be some kind of governance in a cell, these cells build up to create a kind of body organ.
When there are billions of cells, there becomes a kind of body,
when there are billions of atoms and molecules, there becomes a cell,
Now mankind family acts as a kind of building block to create a society,
societies act as a kind of building block to create a kind of government,
There are almost 250 governments on earth to some extent tackling to get united and act as a single body,
By the fact that the universe is very large in comparison with the size of humans, similar to the size of ahuman in comparison with the size of a sub atomic particle, can billions of small governments get so close to one another and get so integrated to act as a being?
You see, billions of cells constitute the body of humans, much similar to one another but different in behaviour,
bodies create governments, very similar in structures, but different in policy,
Some of the cells create brain, some others create hands,.....and cooperate to act as a single body,
Could the next being be a kind of large golbalizement(if correct) consisting of billions of governments, with different governments creating different organs of this creature?
This creature can have a kind of networked nervous system, organs of which could act hundreds of thousands of kilometers apart.
My last question: Could this be another plan of the ultra universe?

pzkpfw
2012-Aug-19, 08:19 AM
... My last question: Could this be another plan of the ultra universe?

Plan? Do you think evolution has a plan?

KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-19, 08:25 AM
Plan? Do you think evolution has a plan?

By plan I mean a kind of an extrapolation of the current situation.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-19, 06:57 PM
Have you read about System Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_theory)?

KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-21, 03:22 PM
Have you read about System Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_theory)?

The description is good but not well defined or complete. It focuses on the name of the people more than the description of "System". I have many years of experience in systems and I think a more general definition of a system is as follows:
"A system is described as a set of well defined components in function with well defined Inputs and Outputs of the overall system."
The definition of system is necessary but not enough to describe the type or model of the system. So System+Model gives a more appropriate definition for the context of my thread.

As an example, if someone's heart is replaced with an artificial heart with exactly the same function, then the system retains its definition. But if this artificial heart to some extent distorts the output performance of his/her body, it functions as a system but as a different model of mankind when performance still lies within performance of human beings.

You in car manufacturing industries, There are many different systems. For example, BMW system, Ford System,.....
All defined as systems. But when they are called BMW 530, BMW 517 then you get total definition of components and overall performance as the I/O of the system.

Please don't blame me that I,m trying to outperform all other definitions, but adding something to the previous definitions.

In our case which relates to the topic of this thread, first of all i can not call it a system because the components are not well defined in function(actually in this case the constituents are not well defined), secondly the I/O of the whole "being" is not clearly define.

Currently although the universe works, I cannot call it a system, because the inputs and outputs are not so far well defined.

You see, when I think of a human cell, sometimes I ask myself: Does this cell know it is functioning for a human being? From a DNA point of view the cell knows it is a defined system, but the cell may never know the overall function of the being in which this cell is functioning for.

Noclevername
2012-Aug-21, 08:06 PM
The cells of a living organism all originated as the same cell and share the same DNA. Humanity as a whole is more like a bacterial colony, mutiple organisms joined loosely and containing multiple lines of descent.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-21, 10:03 PM
The description is good but not well defined or complete. It focuses on the name of the people more than the description of "System". I have many years of experience in systems and I think a more general definition of a system is as follows:
"A system is described as a set of well defined components in function with well defined Inputs and Outputs of the overall system."
The definition of system is necessary but not enough to describe the type or model of the system. So System+Model gives a more appropriate definition for the context of my thread.

As an example, if someone's heart is replaced with an artificial heart with exactly the same function, then the system retains its definition. But if this artificial heart to some extent distorts the output performance of his/her body, it functions as a system but as a different model of mankind when performance still lies within performance of human beings.

You in car manufacturing industries, There are many different systems. For example, BMW system, Ford System,.....
All defined as systems. But when they are called BMW 530, BMW 517 then you get total definition of components and overall performance as the I/O of the system.

Please don't blame me that I,m trying to outperform all other definitions, but adding something to the previous definitions.

In our case which relates to the topic of this thread, first of all i can not call it a system because the components are not well defined in function(actually in this case the constituents are not well defined), secondly the I/O of the whole "being" is not clearly define.

Currently although the universe works, I cannot call it a system, because the inputs and outputs are not so far well defined.

You see, when I think of a human cell, sometimes I ask myself: Does this cell know it is functioning for a human being? From a DNA point of view the cell knows it is a defined system, but the cell may never know the overall function of the being in which this cell is functioning for.

I think you're looking for confusion where none exists.

ZunarJ5
2012-Aug-22, 02:20 PM
Not really sure how to respond to the OP.

Sounds a little like an artificial (or man made) version of the Gaia hypothesis...

The OP does inspire questions (in me at least) on how we define life. If the definition of life is phrased just so could its scope expand to include the characteristics displayed by a city, nation, or global civilization?

primummobile
2012-Aug-22, 03:24 PM
Are you talking about something like siphonophores, such as the Portuguese Man of War? Or are you talking about something more like an ant colony that functions as a single organism but each individual is a complete organism in itself?

KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-22, 05:22 PM
Not really sure how to respond to the OP.

Sounds a little like an artificial (or man made) version of the Gaia hypothesis...

The OP does inspire questions (in me at least) on how we define life. If the definition of life is phrased just so could its scope expand to include the characteristics displayed by a city, nation, or global civilization?

I was going to ask about the behavioural mechanism of intelligent beings. fortunately in your Gaia reference a found a similar topic:

Another influence for the Gaia theory and the environmental movement in general came as a side effect of the Space Race between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. During the 1960s, the first humans in space could see how the Earth looked alike as a whole. The photograph Earthrise taken by astronaut William Anders in 1968 during the Apollo 8 mission became an early symbol for the global ecology movement.


I think the next being is approaching this mechanism without being aware of it. I mean the whole system is going to divide to two , lets say' +ve and -ve(better to say female and male) parts which gives momentum to its life form to survive and develop, a kind of evolution. In this context -ve doesn't mean Evil or +ve doesn't necessarily mean Good.

My question is, does anyone know anything about this mechanism as a must for life to evolve? I'm not sure if cloning would survive life form(no idea if male reproduction of mankind has ever taken place by cloning).

I couldn't get a clear explanation of life form from this Gaia theory. Can life be described as a system? From my point of view the components may be called two +ve and -ve components which must be well defined in function. The inputs seem to be all the surroundings(light, water,......) and the output is +ve and -ve(female and male) components of similar type.

Could a kind of " the next being" be defined in this way?" I think the structure of life is currently approaching a kind of two governing components which at the end may lead to two +ve and -ve(male and female) components.

My last question: One would you like to be the +ve(female) governing part or the -ve(male) governing part of it? Does it matter?:)

JCoyote
2012-Aug-23, 06:17 AM
I think you're looking for confusion where none exists.

I think this statement is something I will quote incessantly going forward all over the web. :)

I did once have a story concept of humans being sentient but also unconsciously part of larger "meta organisms" that were not sentient. In the factual world biology, sociology, psychology of organizational behaviour... it's not like this sort of thing isn't studied. And with a sample set of one species the larger inferences you are straining for Khash just aren't going to be testable.

Paul Wally
2012-Aug-23, 08:45 AM
I couldn't get a clear explanation of life form from this Gaia theory. Can life be described as a system? From my point of view the components may be called two +ve and -ve components which must be well defined in function. The inputs seem to be all the surroundings(light, water,......) and the output is +ve and -ve(female and male) components of similar type.



One of the characteristics of a life-form is that it's goal-directed. This is achieved through cybernetic feedback mechanisms by comparing the goal state to the actual state and then taking steps to reduce the difference (negative feedback). There is however no evidence, that I'm aware of, which suggests that societies, ecosystems and the Earth are goal-directed. Also, just because a dynamic system naturally tends toward a certain state doesn't necessarily make it goal-directed. An additional requirement is that the goal must be intended by the system , but how do we measure intention?

HenrikOlsen
2012-Aug-23, 12:20 PM
An additional requirement is that the goal must be intended by the system , but how do we measure intention?
This excludes evolution from consideration then..

KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-23, 02:52 PM
One of the characteristics of a life-form is that it's goal-directed. This is achieved through cybernetic feedback mechanisms by comparing the goal state to the actual state and then taking steps to reduce the difference (negative feedback). There is however no evidence, that I'm aware of, which suggests that societies, ecosystems and the Earth are goal-directed. Also, just because a dynamic system naturally tends toward a certain state doesn't necessarily make it goal-directed. An additional requirement is that the goal must be intended by the system , but how do we measure intention?

The tendency seems to be heading towards a kind of eternal life. XX and XY cells, evolved a kind of automated system to feed them automatically, but this evolved structure hasn't succeeded yet to overcome death of the individual cells. As far as science has shown us(thanks to motivated scientists), there seems to be only one defined genetic code which is the specific characteristic of that "being". So life form seems to have this sentient characteristic towards a mechanism of eternal survival with regeneration capability of the past may be(having got the codes).
Could there exist a kind of plan or intention to become eternal? What would be the structure of an eternal life? Imagine the life form has changed to an eternal life form, what are you going to do? Drink your specific wine, no need to work, no aging, sitting by the rivers, for ever, ever, ever!!!! So what? Perhaps there is a mysterious plan behind it! Or mankind as a building block may never realize the sense of being of "the next being".

NEOWatcher
2012-Aug-23, 03:14 PM
Could there exist a kind of plan or intention to become eternal?

Certainly we (and other creatures) have the instinct to preserve our lives. We also have the desire to extend it.
But; beyond that, it gets into philisophical questions and issues that really cant be answered from an objective point of view.


Imagine the life form has changed to an eternal life form, what are you going to do? Drink your specific wine, no need to work, no aging, sitting by the rivers, for ever, ever, ever!!!!
If you want to see what some of those issues might be, take a look at the Ethics of Immortality (http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/132571-The-Ethics-of-Immortality) thread.

primummobile
2012-Aug-23, 03:29 PM
Even if we did find a way to halt aging, unless we each live in a bubble everyone is going to eventually die from either an accident or a disease. That means that in order for the species to survive we would still need to reproduce or we would need to become artificial.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-23, 06:41 PM
I think this statement is something I will quote incessantly going forward all over the web. :)Feel free. I'm not sure if I came up with it myself or got it somewhere else or just snowcloned it.


I did once have a story concept of humans being sentient but also unconsciously part of larger "meta organisms" that were not sentient. In the factual world biology, sociology, psychology of organizational behaviour... it's not like this sort of thing isn't studied. And with a sample set of one species the larger inferences you are straining for Khash just aren't going to be testable.

In reality, cells tend to become specialized and remain a fixed structure in the organism. Humans don't do that with regard to their nation or state. The International Relations theory of Realism tends to see national/sovereign governments as "unitary actors", but that's just a model. Seeing humanity or the earth as a whole as being alive might be a useful model for certain examinations/analogies, but it's just a model, not a realistic description.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-25, 04:09 PM
In reality, cells tend to become specialized and remain a fixed structure in the organism. Humans don't do that with regard to their nation or state....

What if a city becomes so populated that the dynamic behaviour of humans approach that of a cell, but a mobile cell having got a mobile cell phone that gives this limited dynamic cross sectional ability to this mobile cell?
Having got the internet, and Google map, Google earth and highly advanced virtual reality, what is going to be the individual mobility of everyone?
By gaia hypothesis, probably in that case the earth may become one single node or organ of life among thousands that may develop in future.
You see, some research is being carried out on the possibility that brain acts only for mobility. Now that cells evolved the mobility mechanism, then the next organism seems to be highly dynamic to use spacetime to control aging by delay(not a true anti aging mechanism). Is it?
My question is: Why is mankind so intended to expand and occupy spacetime? Could this be a kind of continuation of the survival of the cell metabolism of the future organism that may be the next being?

Noclevername
2012-Aug-25, 06:04 PM
You see, some research is being carried out on the possibility that brain acts only for mobility.

Can you cite or show some of this research? I'm entirely unfamiliar with it.



Now that cells evolved the mobility mechanism, then the next organism seems to be highly dynamic to use spacetime to control aging by delay(not a true anti aging mechanism). Is it?
Are you talking about time dilation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation) and the twin paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox)? That is the only method I know of to use spacetime to "delay" aging, and it only does so relative to those who don't use it.


My question is: Why is mankind so intended to expand and occupy spacetime? Could this be a kind of continuation of the survival of the cell metabolism of the future organism that may be the next being?

Every lving thing expands, and occupies spacetime. In that regard, we're nothing special.

Ara Pacis
2012-Aug-26, 04:31 AM
What if a city becomes so populated that the dynamic behaviour of humans approach that of a cell, but a mobile cell having got a mobile cell phone that gives this limited dynamic cross sectional ability to this mobile cell?
Having got the internet, and Google map, Google earth and highly advanced virtual reality, what is going to be the individual mobility of everyone?
By gaia hypothesis, probably in that case the earth may become one single node or organ of life among thousands that may develop in future.
You see, some research is being carried out on the possibility that brain acts only for mobility. Now that cells evolved the mobility mechanism, then the next organism seems to be highly dynamic to use spacetime to control aging by delay(not a true anti aging mechanism). Is it?
My question is: Why is mankind so intended to expand and occupy spacetime? Could this be a kind of continuation of the survival of the cell metabolism of the future organism that may be the next being?

Humans are mobile, which is why they're not like cells. Most cells are structural and don't move from their place in the structure, with the exception of blood cells. They also have different motivations than cells, which is to perform its activities at certain times as directed by chemical or electrochemical messages. Humans can work for different goals against the top level goals which means that if it was an organism, it's an organism continuously ridden with multiple cancers.

KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-26, 03:41 PM
Can you cite or show some of this research? I'm entirely unfamiliar with it.
http://www.bettermovement.org/2011/brain-for-movement/

KhashayarShatti
2012-Aug-26, 03:51 PM
To be more specific:
http://alumni.trin.cam.ac.uk/admin/document.doc?id=23
Page 10