Take the 2-minute tour ×
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in logical reasoning. It's 100% free, no registration required.

An anthill can be described as a superorganism, with behaviours and interactions much more complex than those of an individual ant. We could find analogies between the superorganism and other living organisms, as memory for instance. Chemicals that ants use to mark paths, could work as a gigant memory for the superorganism.

Multicellular organisms can be seen as superorganisms compounds of many individual cells too.

Among cells, they recognise certain patterns in their surrounding and behave accordingly to play specific roles, that is why most of us have all our body's parts in their place.

Humans, are multicelular organisms that recognise patterns with a different level of complexity and change their behaviour to fit within specific roles in a group of individuals or society.

I'm sure that cells lack the level of comprehension that humans have, which brings me to the question...

Are we part of a more complex superorganism, that we lack the level of conprehencion to identify or even understand?

share|improve this question
2  
This question seems a bit broad but I think you provide enough context such that we understand what you are asking and can reasonably provide an answer. One part of your question that vexes me however is: "Among cells, they are more or less, aware what they are and their function, that is the reason why most of us have all our body's parts in their place." I'm pretty sure my cells aren't aware that they are cells, using any definition of awareness I've ever come across, nor would they need to be in order to continue functioning properly. Is a windmill aware that it's a windmill? –  stoicfury Dec 11 '12 at 4:51
1  
This definition of awareness can be applied to cells too. –  rraallvv Dec 11 '12 at 13:27
1  
I'm not sure about that... "Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns." Perhaps with a quite warped interpretation of said wikipedia definition (not the gold standard in philosophy by any measure, btw) you could say that say that awareness is "the ability to feel objects", but this misses what I believe to be a key part of the idea: the recognition that one is perceiving. –  stoicfury Dec 12 '12 at 2:12
    
I've changed the question to avoid using definitions like awareness, or consciousness –  rraallvv Dec 12 '12 at 4:18
    
There is a reason why we talk of the 'body politic'. –  Mozibur Ullah Dec 20 '12 at 14:25

6 Answers 6

up vote 9 down vote accepted

In short, no. At least not under any falsifiable definition of an organism. When biologists refer to a superorganism or an extended phenotype, they aren't referring to a form of life, but the capacity of a species to propagate themselves.

Human systems fail the sniff test for life as well. Societies and organizations cannot replicate themselves by way of copying genes. Nor can they conduct respiration, or synthesize proteins. Most importantly, they are not contiguous, which is an absolutely necessary characteristic of an organism.

Another argument against is that the concept you refer to is self-insulating. It doesn't open itself up to criticism. Like Freudian psychoanalysis, any refusal to believe that one is an adherent to the proposed system could be dismissed as an "unawareness" of participation.

I should add that this does not mean that superorganisms do not exist, but that the sense of the word is entirely non-biologic. It is social. Unless one can make concrete parallels between the biological functioning of living systems and the mechanisms of human society (that is, they function the same without any abstraction from the physical), then it is incorrect to refer to society as a living being.

share|improve this answer
    
"Societies and organizations cannot replicate themselves by way of copying genes", could epigenetics suggest that societies imprint themselves in our genes? –  rraallvv Dec 11 '12 at 16:02
    
@rraallvv - No, not in a meaningful sense. We're more likely to have societies imprinting themselves in our genes through selection--against gluten intolerance and for traits conducive to farming, for instance. –  Rex Kerr Dec 11 '12 at 16:27
    
Most importantly, they are not contiguous - at what scale ? when looked from space, humanity resembles mold colony quite a bit. // +1, anyway –  c69 Dec 27 '12 at 22:30
    
At what scale is contiguity falsifiable? We can say that two objects are materially in contact and be false. Can we be false if two objects can be considered contiguous at any given scale? –  SAHornickel Dec 28 '12 at 8:13

I think you have to be careful with metaphors. Very careful. Some writers get carried away with their ideas and comparisons and end up committing the error of treating metaphors as if they had formal import per se.

This question is, of course, metaphysical at bottom. For example, one metaphysical position may render the distinction between things is ultimately illusory, further rendering the existence of organisms illusory, at least as we understand them. Some metaphysical positions subordinate individuals to the societies they produce.

However, an Aristotelian metaphysics quite clearly places organisms above the societies they create. Here, individual organisms are defined through a final cause -- an end -- which they seek to realize and actualize. Some of those organisms realize their ends through interaction with other organisms of the same species, forming societies and communities among themselves in order to realize their natures, as it were. Societies are not individual in themselves but a multiplicity of individuals united in varying relations and subordinate metaphysically to the individuals participating in these relations.

The opposite is true when we consider parts of an organism where the parts of an organism are subordinate to the organism of the whole and ordered according to the finality of the organism. In this sense, you cannot speak of superorganisms despite very superficial similarities between the coordination between an organism's parts and cooperation between individuals. There is no being called "society" which has an end in itself, only a community of individuals which is instrumental in relation to the ends of its members.

share|improve this answer
    
By metaphor if you mean the superorganism/ant description, I don't think it was as such. Check this for example. –  Sniper Clown Dec 18 '12 at 4:21
    
I take the term to be metaphorical i.e. we don't really mean the swarm as a whole is intelligent per se. For those who don't see things this way, I appeal to my argument about metaphysical assumptions. Intelligence requires an intellect, and the swarm is not an intellect, but at best individual intellects coordinating behavior. Superficial comparisons between the coordination of organs carry no substance. But I do see merit in the question as a starting point for metaphysical questions, particularly of the mechanistic variety. –  danielm Dec 18 '12 at 18:00
    
@danielm I'm glad you made that asseveration, because that precisely could be the key to the answer. I personaly thing that intellect is an emergent behaviour derived from relatively more simplistic interactions between individual neurones. For instance, each neurone take its inputs, and trigger its output according to a threshold level, that output is the input to one or more neurones. Some outputs are conected to cells that create some chemicals, in turn those chemicals allow neurones to modify the number of connections, or its threshold. –  rraallvv Dec 21 '12 at 18:02
    
(continued) ...There are also feedback loops. After you put a huge number of neurones as in our brain there are some emergent patters, that is what we call intellect. –  rraallvv Dec 21 '12 at 18:03
    
I understand that this is how emergentists try to explain all phenomena. But there are serious problems with the position, not least of which are its mechanism and origin of e. properties. However, it's not necessarily what's at stake here. First off, neurons composing a brain is different than people forming a society. I presume the reason the distinction isn't seen is because of a certain reductionism. But this reductionism would render the universe an organism which would render the notion of organism meaningless. Otherwise, in what way is this superorganism separated from its environment? –  danielm Jan 7 '13 at 18:24

Are we part of a more complex superorganism, that we lack the level of comprehension to identify or even understand?

We are part of several systems, some of which might form a separate whole in ways for which we don't have established concepts that we could use for comparison. These systems don't have consciousness in the usual sense, but they have other properties just as indescribable. I think "level of comprehension" or "level of understanding" misses the point, they are just different. It's also important to note that not every organization of humans, ants or other animals automatically forms a separate whole. For example, a separate whole should not draw too much of its identity from the identity of a few of its members. So mathematics is a separate whole, but a political party is normally not.

share|improve this answer
    
When I refer to the lack of level of comprehension, I'm referring to a situation where we lack the capability of create a mental model or image of the thing. It's as if we try to imagine how would look like a hypercube. For instance in theoretical physicis some phenomena are described by mathematic equations, and corroborated by experimental data, even when most would agree that some observations are counterintuitive at best, and in many cases far beyond our comprehension. –  rraallvv Dec 20 '12 at 22:35
    
@rraallvv Your comment confirms that I correctly interpreted what you mean by "level of understanding" (or "lack the capability"/"far beyond our comprehension"). My point when I say "they are just different" is that it is not a power of imagination related thing, but more a "we can't imagine what we can't relate to" related thing. Perhaps I should use a more drastic example than mathematics. –  Thomas Klimpel Dec 21 '12 at 11:26
    
Question: "What should a jew in 1944 have done, if he was just arriving with a train in Auschwitz?". Answer: "There was nothing left to do, he should have realized before that thing turned bad, when there was still time to do something." The answer is correct, but we can't understand that, if we don't know who asked that question, why he asked it and who gave the answer. And even if we knew, it would still be challenging to sufficiently relate to that person and understand what the question and answer signified. –  Thomas Klimpel Dec 21 '12 at 11:34
    
I often wondered if the organism level of system was held in distinguished regard only because we strongly link our identities to individual organisms. –  obelia Jan 5 '13 at 22:24
    
@obelia One point in favor of the organism level is that organisms at least exists in a very concrete sense, similar to planets, cells or atoms. Note that consciousness is not the only "indescribable property" at the organism level. The prototypical example is "color", which is so obviously indescribable that we rarely try to conjecture things like that some "superorganism" could experiences something similar. So I think consciousness is special, because it's less obvious that it is really indescribable. –  Thomas Klimpel Jan 6 '13 at 0:44

I'm taking the question literally: The OP asks behaving as; this means we can only take observable behaviour into account, so we cannot appeal to what it means for an organism to feel in-itself, nor to perceive in-itself, nor to be conscious in-itself.

On that basis, we can certainly say that super-organisms do exist (there is a reason why we talk of the body politic).

But of course, consciousness is the very stuff of life - it shouldn't be left to one-side. Taking that into account then of course super-organisms do not exist (given the physics-based scientific/materialistic metaphysical structure within which we still reside today).

We can speculate: though there aren't any super-organisms in our immediate purview, can we rule them out as entirely impossible, that the laws of nature are against such a monster? We have no actual science of consciousness. Panpsychism posits all matter has a mental aspect: So we are already super-organisms, and so is the chair you are sitting on!

share|improve this answer
    
If the question is taken literally, it isn't a sensible question. Behavior is only a small, however important, part of the phenotype of an organism. Added to it is that behavior among living systems isn't generalized but varied, and so one would have to ask what type of super-organism humanity behaves as. As a sociological term, super (or social) organism might be valid to express a method for interpreting data, but as a philosophical and scientific term, it lacks rigor. –  SAHornickel Dec 20 '12 at 23:54

It is tempting to describe human societies as something similar to anthills: something like superorganisms, where single organisms are like cells in normal organism.

In fact there were scientists who described nations as living beings, such as Rudolf Kjellen. You will find very interesting materials under term geopolitics.

There is, however (at least in modern world) a great difference between anthill and human society: every ant belongs to exactly one anthill (as long as it is not removed from there). There is, therefore, border easy to define between anthills. We can't tell the same with human societies. No matter on each level, the borders between societies are fuzzy. There are people belonging to multiple nations or religions (from multi-national or multi-religious marriages for example). There are people who in statistics belong to given society, but de facto don't behave as members of it (like agnostics or not practicing 'believers' being formally members of given church).

When it goes to complexity beyond comprehention, yes, sociology defines the group as something more as the sum of all components. We are far from understanding the society as the whole (which would mean - being able to predict the future actions of mankind). The science able to do that is described only in science-fiction novels such as Asimov's Foundation series, and is described by the mathematics more complicated as anything we know now.

share|improve this answer
    
pharaoh ants are known for changing their "homes" often - so its one less difference between us. –  c69 Dec 27 '12 at 22:33
    
good to know, but can a single ant have 2 homes in one time? –  РСТȢѸФХѾЦЧШЩЪЫЬѢѤЮѦѪѨѬѠѺѮѰѲѴ Dec 27 '12 at 22:35
    
object cannot exist in more that 1 place at given time, but if we put wordplay aside: - Ant nests form a big colony (up to 200 active queens), workers move between them at will, and do not attack each other. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharaoh_ant#Colony_behavior –  c69 Dec 27 '12 at 22:49

Are we part of a more complex superorganism, that we lack the level of comprehension to identify or even understand?

This question is self-contradictory and cannot be directly answered.

When we assume that we cannot comprehend X, then every proposition about X is, by our original premise, undecidable.

Another issue is that the set of properties of human beings are not isomorphic to the set of properties of human cells. For example, a human organism survives in Earth's atmosphere whereas a human nerve cell does not. Hence we cannot extrapolate the relationship between an organism and its cells out into the infinity and expect something similar to be there. Especially so when our starting point is that we lack the required capacity to notice it.

A hypothesis can be proven or disproven only if it is internally consistent and falsifiable but a question "Are we part of a more complex superorganism that we cannot understand nor identify?" is neither internally consistent nor falsifiable.

When it comes to anthills and societies, I tend to favor Occam's Razor and suggest emergent behavior.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.