[MD] Distinguishing Levels

[Arlo J. Bensinger]

[Platt] 
So a picture of a city or your HOG group shows American society? I  don't think
so, any more than a picture of a group of Apache tents  shows an Apache society
or a picture of my street shows an integrated  society. A photo of a group of
people by itself signifies nothing more 
than a group of people. You have to be told it identifies your HOG  group or, in
my case, my model sailing club group. But a picture of a  herd of sheep
requires no such extra explanation.

[Arlo]
A picture of an ant colonly no more identifies the social relationship of ants
any more than a picture of my HOG group identifies the social relationship of
the humans. In the same way, a picture of a primate group does not show the
social relations among the members.

A camera can't identify social patterns of humans, ants, bees or primates. It
can only identify biological individuals. Ants, obviously, have very primitive
social analogues, primates more comples, with humans even more complex. But to
say only humans engage in social patterns of value is quite erroneous, and
(IMHO) weakens the MOQ rather than strengthening it.

[Arlo previously]
I would argue instead that "social patterns" are defined by symbolic  mediation 
between the individuals of which it is made. Although the  human body is a 
collective a cells, it is not a "social pattern", but an advanced biological 
collective, just as the cell itself is a  biological collective. The levels 
contain increasing examples of complexity, until at some point the jump is from
"more complex" to "whole new thing".

[Platt]
So what has that got to do with calling atoms in a cloud a society?  Where do
you draw the line? When does a "collective" become a "society?" Do ants engage
in "symbolic mediation?"

[Arlo]
I'd say, yes, ants engage in symbolic mediation, albeit at a very crude and
primitive level. Bees in a slightly more sophisticated (but still quite crude)
level. Primates more so. Dolphins maybe even more so. Humans in quite advanced
and complex ways. A great book on this, that I think complements the MOQ quite
nicely is, "Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and
Software" by Steven Johnson.

And, a "collective" does not "become a society". Societies emerged out of
collective biological behavior when the level of complexity of said collectives
reached the point of utilizing symbolic mediation to regulate the individuals.

In the same way, intellectual patterns emerged out of collective social behavior
when the level of complexity became great enough that a whole new level
emerged. Where THAT line is, I don't know. I've been following the discussion,
and it is quite interesting.

Arlo