Sunday, January 22, 2006

Why are there no slave rebellions?

Actually, the full title above should be “Why are there no slave ant rebellions?” But it works for humans the same way. Slavery is a “functioning social system” in both species.

Both are social species. What does that mean?

It means that some individuals form a group – that they no longer act only in their own interest, but caring for the other group members as well. Surely not because they love all the others, but simply because the group makes them stronger, increases the own chance to survive.

And how are groups build? Like any other information processing system: by communication = information processing.

Btw: Do you know how to detect systems or subsystems? By measuring the “density” of communication. Where the density decreases (or increases) you have found a boundary of a (sub)system. Remember SOA? To have more flexible, easy-to-modify systems, you have to make the members/objects more autarchic, to loosen coupling – means to lower the density of communication.

The more dense the communication, the less individual the members – look at your body: Build of billions of cells working together, highly specialized to their tasks.

And now what?

Suicide is the keyword here, because as long as cells live as individuals, they are something like immortal. In a human body only the ovum is allowed to survive in its successors (it’s the only cell which undergoes two births: “all of them are present at birth”) – each and every other cell has to die after their lifetimes and many, many even earlier: they have to die by real suicide. It’s a simple tool of Mother Nature to create interfaces, which are necessary for the information processing – she creates much too many cells on both sides of the connection to increase the chance of their coupling, sending unfocused communication signals. When the contact is created (and communication starts), then the flood of communications is controlled, centered towards the interface – the other cells, now definitely dispensable, are cut off the communication stream...

and in just one hour they are not only dead but dissolved without a trace.

So suicide is nothing “unusual” in a social group, when the communication is dense enough to create something like a “body” out of the different members, since the “will to survive” moves from the members to the body. (Darwin: if it wouldn’t do that, the body would simply dissolve again and not be able to reproduce itself.)

Humans are near to that state, i guess, because i don’t know from any other apes which made suicide to a rite like we did.

That’s one precondition for slavery: the willingness to sacrifice for the own group.

The next is – look a the ants – lacking intelligence. Because the amazon ants, the slaveholders, use mimikry to stir the willingness of the slaves. The amazon queen “smells” like the own queen – and the kings and popes of the human societies “smell” like fathers, pretend to protect and educate “their children” (s. Rousseau). And if the slaves are not stupid enough, a slowly changing system is able to get them used to obedience and harm against their truest interests – and more important, even the truest interests of their children.

“The slaves build homes for and feed the slave-makers, who cannot do anything but fight. They depend completely on their slaves for survival.” Sounds familiar.

The original quote? Replace “slaves” with “slave ants” and “slave-makers” with Amazon ants.

The great difference? “One ant species in the American southwest makes other ants their slaves by raiding their nests and making off with the pupae”.

Only the humans treat their own species so badly.

Remember Vlad Tepes (Vlad the Impaler)? He is “credited” to have killed up to 100,000 persons by staking them. His people allowed him to do so in the name of “national security”, because he was the king and he promised to defend them against enemies. But he didn’t only stake foreigners, he also let his own people “die an agony”, just because he could and he was in the mood for – exactly like Mr. Schwarzenegger today. So question: Who needs foreign enemies with leaders like that?

Seems as if that species deserves to lose Mother Natures goodwill.


2 Comments:

Blogger JasonJ said...

On the lighter side of this argument, if there is one, sometimes you sound an awful lot like Daniel Dennett for someone who has never read the man. I just finished reading "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" a couple of weeks ago. What is interesting is he touches on the same concept in cellular level activity...slaves to a system. The curious part about this post of yours involves another of my favorite philosophers that we have discussed previously who is forever tied to Dennett by a book they co-authored. I am speaking of Doug Hofstadter. I guess it was the ants that did it for me. I'm reading the anthology he published of his column in Scientific American in '81-'83 and one story in particular came out to haunt our dialogues. Hofstadter did a column concerning Nomic, a game of self amendment by Peter Suber of Earlham College. For more on Nomic go to http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm

But back to the point, sometimes you have to look in the very places you aren't looking to find the biggest meanings in life. Nomic is a game that is supposed to simulate the activity of a governing body, a self-referring set of rules which begins with a set of mutable rules and a set of immutable rules and the players decide how the rules evolve and change the rules of the game. I originally saw this as an interesting exercise in civic education and was thinking of eliciting a group of people to experiment with this idea online when Hofstadter's big picture sunk in. What if we were to have a system of rules to govern a system of rules that govern a function of an entity, we assign values to these rules and create algorithms to tweak the rules periodically and then review the rule changes and apply the new set of paradigms to the system? Could we manage to make this system decide choices? Would it begin to have an understanding of mistakes? Accomplishments?

I realize this is a bit of a reach, but isn't that what it is all about? Some days it is humbling trying to understand the complexity of the systems that we take for granted while using these systems to understand how they work. Once again you are selling yourself short if you don't read either of these philosophers.

In regard to the argument concerning the human species, interesting isn't it? I think what we can't seem to grasp is really the truth in the statement that we are not evolution's destination. We are merely a branch in the Tree of Life, granted the most interesting from our perspective, but a branch nonetheless.

6:21 PM, January 26, 2006  
Blogger Again said...

jasonj
Once again you are selling yourself short if you don't read either of these philosophers.

i have to read so much, i didn't read for fun since years (sigh)

awful lot like Daniel Dennett for someone who has never read the man.

something like that i often hear (that i would sound like this scientist or like that thinker) - that's simply because of the basic nature of information - so what people think about follows always the same rules. Some learn it - and some derive it

What if we were to have a system of rules to govern a system of rules that govern a function of an entity, we assign values to these rules and create algorithms to tweak the rules periodically and then review the rule changes and apply the new set of paradigms to the system? Could we manage to make this system decide choices?

actually, as far as i understand you, you describe information

because information is nothing else than? Rules...

sure, if you keep in mind, that a rule is nothing without a rules engine - rules change things and they change it in an orderly way: they detect the related identities/objects and do something "according to plan" onto that objects on and on and on assigning values, tweaking and reviewing other rules (naturally by rules)...

that's information - identifying, repeatable action

and all, what i talk about, is how that basic demands shape the whole world - creating rules over rules over rules, hierarchies of interacting cycles, one depending on the other

Could we manage to make this system decide choices?

sure - know the "observer problem" in physics?

You simply have to consider, that your player is part of your game - the whole system of rules includes the gamer. So, if you have a system of rules over rules being able to adjust the rules itself (by a subsystem of its own), it has only one choice: to be able to adjust it "correctly" - otherwise it will be destroyed. And if the system learns what "correct" means, it has to have some "correctives" - and when it is complex enough, you call that "correctives" Ego, because the way to correct yourself is to view yourself "from outside" to be able to see mistakes - and "from outside" means, that you are able to create an image of yourself - what DNA is for the cell is the Ego for the mind

think what we can't seem to grasp is really the truth in the statement that we are not evolution's destination. We are merely a branch in the Tree of Life, granted the most interesting from our perspective, but a branch nonetheless.

exactly

but that's so hard to admit, that most of the people will never be able to forgive you saying things like that

because at the moment you accept that truth you know that there will be nothing else protecting you - than your own brains power

8:33 AM, January 28, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home