[MD] Social Ants?

[Joseph Maurer]

On 18 June 2006 3:40 PM Horse writes to Arlo, Steve, Case et al.,

[Horse] Hi Arlo, Steve, Case et.al

Sorry for the delay - kids take up a lot of time! Anyway, where was I?

In between various other activities I've been mulling over what it is
that constitutes the difference between what appear to be social
patterns of value in biological networks such as ants, bees etc. and
social patterns of value which we apply to human societies. After
several junked posts I came up with some tentative ideas which I'd like
to try out on you to see if they make sense. As usual, criticisms are
most welcome. The first, and I think the most important idea that popped up 
was the
difference in structure. Ant, bee and wasp colonies/nest are monolithic
whereas human societies are distributed. Monolithic structures, in the sense 
that I'm using the term, are rigid and uniform where, in general, the whole 
network functions around a single point of reference. Distributed structures 
on the other hand are decentralized and diverse - no single node is, of 
necessity, more
important than any other node. Within a monolithic structure there is a main 
component which, if destroyed, results in either a severe malfunctioning of 
the network or,
in most cases, the destruction of the entire structure.
Distributed structures can sustain destruction of many nodes and still
continue to operate - although with some degrading of efficiency.

Hi Horse and all

Thank you! The sentence: "The first, and I think the most important idea 
that popped up was the difference in structure. Ant, bee and wasp 
colonies/nest are monolithic
whereas human societies are distributed." will haunt my dreams. I don’t know 
if my musings fit with yours but for what it is worth....

IMO an experience of structure constitutes the social order. Biological 
networks are determined by cosmic evolution. Human networks are also 
determined by cosmic evolution (objective), with a kicker, a possibility of 
being determined by conscious evolution (enlightenment) (subjective) (the 10 
commandments). The structure is analogous to the Octave in music, or the 
color separations of a sun ray by a prism, or the different varieties of 
plants from the Poppy.

IMO the distributed structure is subject to a law-giving intellectual 
structure, either cosmic e.g. gravity or conscious (you name it). The order 
changes by celebrity (a brotherhood), or by vote (a republic).

Joe

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Horse" <horse at darkstar.uk.net>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Social Ants?


Hi Arlo, Steve, Case et.al

Sorry for the delay - kids take up a lot of time! Anyway, where was I?

In between various other activities I've been mulling over what it is
that constitutes the difference between what appear to be social
patterns of value in biological networks such as ants, bees etc. and
social patterns of value which we apply to human societies. After
several junked posts I came up with some tentative ideas which I'd like
to try out on you to see if they make sense. As usual, criticisms are
most welcome.
The first, and I think the most important idea that popped up was the
difference in structure. Ant, bee and wasp colonies/nest are monolithic
whereas human societies are distributed.
Monolithic structures, in the sense that I'm using the term, are rigid
and uniform where, in general, the whole network functions around a
single point of reference. Distributed structures on the other hand are
decentralized and diverse - no single node is, of necessity, more
important than any other node.
Within a monolithic structure there is a main component which, if
destroyed, results in either a severe malfunctioning of the network or,
in most cases, the destruction of the entire structure.
Distributed structures can sustain destruction of many nodes and still
continue to operate - although with some degrading of efficiency.

Where we're talking about learned behaviours and instinctive behaviour
I'm not sure if the two become overlapped to a great extent. As with
most animals, behaviour that is 'instinctive' is often taught to
children so we should distinguish between generally learned behaviours
and the transmission of novel behaviours within and between social networks.

Steve mentions self-similarity in fractal structures and I think that
this has some bearing when comparing ant/bee/wasp groups and
human/primate groups as there are also areas where similarities also
occur. I'd hazard a guess and say that although the hymenoptera group
display some social level patterns they do not possess sufficient
complexity and novelty. Neither is the network structure distributed or
sufficiently diverse. It's my guess that these would be the necessary
minimum to place a group/network of biological patterns within the
social level.

Something else that occurred to me while I was thinking about this and
reading some of Steve's posts was that celebrity is not a basic
constituent of the social level. It appears as if it is more like an
emergent property of social level structures. It's probably more to do
with consolidation of social patterns of value. There are also overtones
of monolithic structures occurring sometimes with celebrity as in the
case of cults. Just a thought!

Anyone got any comments as it's an area I'd like to investigate further.

Cheers


Horse



Arlo J. Bensinger wrote:
> A quick question for Horse. Let's say we consider an ant colony as a 
> non-social,
> biological network. What then distinguishes social human activity from 
> this ant
> activity? Would it be language, whether vocal, gestural or the like? Would 
> it
> be, as I think Steve(?) suggested, "learned behavior" as opposed to
> "instinctual behavior"? Would it be, as maybe Ham would agree, some form 
> of
> conceptual awareness of self? Or, if the social level is reserved, as 
> Pirsig
> suggests, for humans, is the social level contingent upon some form of 
> unique
> human biological trait (btw, Tomasello in The Cultural Origins of Human
> Cognition argues just that)?
>
> In other words, in this conversation about whether or not ant activity is
> social, I've lost track of what we are saying would constitute the "bare
> minimum" of activity, conception or biological precursor, that we would 
> say
> places something on the social level.


Steve Peterson wrote:
 > My position on what type of behaviors would constitute social rather
 > than biological patterns is as you say to try to distinguish
 > instinctual behaviors from socially learned ones.
 > I don’t think that your “whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts”
 > idea defines social achievement. That happens across all scales as a
 > molecule is not just a bunch of atoms and an organism is not just a
 > bunch of cells.
 > I think that social learning occurs as unconscious copying of
behavior > as a response to social quality that may be best understood as
 > celebrity rather than as genetically programmed responses to
inorganic > and biological quality.
 > This social learning is distinct from biological patterns because it
 > is not passed on through genes but instead forms a culture that is
 > passed on through other means.
 > If Quality is an organism’s response to it’s environment then we are
 > looking for a new type of quality other than biological quality that
 > an animal must be responding to to call its behavior social.
 > Pirsig seems to say that celebrity may be the best way to understand
 > this new type of quality: “Celebrity is the Dynamic Quality that
 > primitive social patterns once used to organize themselves.” “It
 > becomes an organizing force of the whole social level of evolution.
 > Without this celebrity force, advanced complex human societies might
 > be impossible.  Even simple ones.”
 > I think we should be looking for something like celebrity and an
 > ability to respond to celebrity among animals to think that they have
 > social patterns.
 > As for social patterns being contingent on some biological trait,
I’ve > speculated that a capacity for emotions may be this trait. An
 > emotional reaction may be the biological correlate to a response to
 > social quality.
 > Is anyone aware of accounts of animal behavior that fit my
description > of social patterns as distinct from biological ones?
 >
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/