Our body is made up of cells - individuals who make up a greater whole through specialized functions and contracts...

Our body is made up of cells - individuals who make up a greater whole through specialized functions and contracts enforced by chemical communication.

What if we, as large individually intelligent organisms, are analogous to the cells in our bodies, with the bodies we art a part of being society as a whole?

cell is to body as body is to civilization

Should we look to the interactive structures of cells for political inspiration in creating the best systems of government? Is the universe fractal in this way? Or are we on an echelon above the cell and we need systems of organization that are drastically different than those of our cells?

If this is the case, why is it the case?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton
evolution-institute.org/
zerostate.net/
youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA
youtube.com/watch?v=rIEq305SizA
peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Similarly, diplomatic relationships between different civilizations, be they countries or ethnic groups, could be thought of as the next level up. Communication and cooperation channels need to be put in place. Once they manage to form a cohesive whole, they become a global species

The next level would be when we interface with the nearest alien super-civilization, and the next level is when all alien super-civilizations interface successfully. Then what is next? Will we discover inter-universal communication and become an inter-universal group of life

What if this is all a process of all of existence ripping itself from the void, trying to escape its own death

What is everything? Is there one universe? Are there multiple? And if we knew for sure, how would we make use of it?

Despite knowing that there are many other planets, starts, galaxies, and galactic clusters, this perspective doesn't seem to have permeated the culture and given an "overview effect" described by astronauts who see our Pale Blue Dot and well up with emotions wondering why we can't all just get along

This is not some spiritual nonsense, this is real and important. We should take a bigger perspective though - a galactic overview effect. Why can't all of our species just get along? Then a universal perspective - why can't we all just get along? We're trapped here.

This is a game theoretical scenario - we can't all win if everyone is putting their own success above that of others. We will fail if we allow such ideologies to overcome unity. This is objective

Look at cancer cells - they put themselves above their organism and must be removed.

What political ideology is best analogized to cancer? I'm sure you all have very strong opinions.

>civilization
you mean ecological communities
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton

post more pics OP

Sure my user

I wish people would start looking at politics from a scientific perspective instead of pretending like it's a human opinion based topic where there are many differing views which are equally valid

Could we create a sufficiently complex finite automaton that matches the main qualities of human behavior, and simulate various ideological political structures to see which ones result in the most success?

We apply data driven approaches to everything in science, and model theoretical analysis approaches. Are there economics and political scientists doing this at a high level, or are us people involved in STEM with scientific and mathematical tendencies just letting the future of humanity stay in the hands of "social studies" majors who don't understand the situation to the same level of depth we theoretically could if we started trying?

Is it really the case that we could never create a relative utopia with ample freedom and a lack of corruption?

I unironically think the answer lies in decentralization of economics and politics. Maybe crypto will help us.

Op the thing is, to achieve what you want, we all need to synchronize our beliefs ..

It takes a lot of research and genuine interest in improving not just your self, but everything around you, to achieve the understanding that you achieved, and to write the post you written.

I know about 900 people in my life, i live in a Capitol city with 8 000 000 people... From my personal friends, maybe 2 of them think this way and can grasp this knowledge.

Each and every one of us need to have this education to realize that ..
But we are all individuals, and people are complicated and personalities are not cookie cutter, so there will always be chaos..

But maybe if we change our educational system, there will be hope that each new generations grasps these ideas at an earlier age, and realize that its simple -
Be good to everyone around yourself and work on resolving problems in an most efficient manner. Once you solved your problems, dont stop to celebrate, continue helping other people.

We have seen with robot designs, the new designs that were done copying nature and animals, that these robots just blow out all the competition when efficacy is measured..
Its very logical that we need to become as a big ant colony - very fucking effective - if we are to survive.

We also need to embrace the internet as the most useful tool ever, to maintain a sort of global sub consciousness that keeps track of all the problems of the world and ways to solve them.

We might all die soon enough, i have a bad feeling about the future of my gran gran gran gran kids...

There was a guy once who wrote a manifesto saying we should do something similar. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” or something like that. The result was a cancerous, artificial organism that felt nothing but pain. We cannot manufacture perfection, for we are an imperfect source. Just like a body is not perfect, for nature is an imperfect source.

Thank you user for this beautiful post, I feel like you understand exactly what I'm saying and it's rare that I see that. Most people just troll on Veeky Forums and don't go in depth

I agree that the internet is extremely important, among the most important inventions ever because it connects people through communication. How would me and you be having this conversation without the internet? We likely never would, yet it gives me hope for the future of humanity and tells me that I am not alone

I wish every genius scientist and engineer would put everything on hold for just a few years and say "we don't need these new technological toys right now, we can wait a few years - capitalism isn't everything and I am not a slave to my company" - and they could create a think tank to solve our problems

THESE are the problems I want to solve, not the ones I solve at work in machine learning for optimizing ad delivery for maximum revenue and other such nonsense. I want to put my skills to work for the good of humanity, I want to work for a government organization where we apply scientific and engineering principles to analyze society and engineer systems of governance that help promote this unity, this global civilization objective, this galactic objective - the Star Trek utopia I dream of and fantasize about, because I KNOW it can be done. I KNOW that my talents alone, despite not being much myself, can be put to better use - therefore the talents of those much more intelligent than me can be put to better use to an even larger extent, and they aren't being

I do not want to spend my life working for a corporation to increase shareholder value, but I guess it's my own selfishness causing me to do this for the rewards of a high salary. I guess I am a part of the problem I am describing

But is that it? "It's my fault"?

No, because the engineering of a civilization needs an incentive structure that encourages this. We need people who do good to make the most money, instead of people who do bad

I feel lost in a labyrinth of people who don't understand these ideals, either from a lack of capability or a lack of caring - or malicious intent for their own goals

>We also need to embrace the internet as the most useful tool ever, to maintain a sort of global sub consciousness that keeps track of all the problems of the world and ways to solve them.
I just can't emphasize enough how much I love this statement. The internet is truly the most important invention in the history of humanity.

So it's time for actual engineering solutions not just philosophical meandering

>People
>>Altruism and mutual cooperation
>>>Create a culture that encourages this, not one that encourages rudeness to appear strong - this is low level primate behavior and should be eliminated

>Physical structures
>>Longterm sustainable designs, not short term profit-driven designs

>Abstract governance structures
>>Longterm sustainable designs, not short term profit-driven designs.
>>>Increase the time horizon of investment while still not leaving behind the people who exist today

I have to go so I won't elaborate, but the general theme here is that we need to increase our investment time horizon far beyond a single lifespan.

Where are all the other anons, is the future of our species and all life in the universe not an interesting enough topic for you?

I guess not

>I want to put my skills to work for the good of humanity

holy hell my man, you exactly described why i want to get into physics and science, i have the dream of finding a way to expand our species beyond this rock. the problem is that you really can't do any help to humanity if you have very low chance of getting employed as a researcher, you're always bound to be a slave under a corporation just to fill up their pockets, whats worse is that corporation isn't for humanity, its for a human.

But then you open up the society to 'cancerous growths' and (((viruses))) that exploit the fundamental altruistic culture without reciprocating, thereby taking resources away from the cells that contribute. In any society where altruism and kindness is the norm and majority, selfishness, dishonesty, and exploitative duplicity are the most rewarding approaches, in that they have the highest effort/risk-to-payout/reward ratio. In order to prevent this, the society's values must be chosen such that if the majority of the society holds that value, then the value becomes the most optimal strategy. That way, the values and cultural aspects of the society will be self-reinforcing.
This delves more into the realm of game theory, which I have no real expertise in, but I think you should research.

What about reproduction? Humans and cells have offspring in radically different ways. Civilizations don't really mate, but they divide and merge constantly all the while adopting survival strategies from each other. On smaller scale you see McDonalds, Starbucks, and whatnot building copies of themselves from the excess resources they got from feeding off people. It feels quite easy to draw analogies between biology and economics, but I'm worried that analogies simplify too much to be useful for nothing but intuition when stepping up one level of complexity.

Great point, you're correct that altruism is exploitable. People are inherently selfish. Maybe for this reason we need a system which exploits our selfishness, turns it against us, and results in an emergent behavior where the people who deserve to benefit do benefit, and those who don't deserve to benefit don't benefit, while everyone still acts selfishly. I don't know if this is even possible but it may be helped by external technologies that enforce limitations on us or allow trustless assumptions of correct behavior on the part of others

Fair enough I guess you're correct. But on a general level, patterns that are successful reproduce, with success being defined by the society through rewards

This basically means we need to reward the patterns which we want to reproduce - to incentivize them. Right now we incentivize selfishness like McDonald's.

>the society's values must be chosen such that if the majority of the society holds that value, then the value becomes the most optimal strategy.

So unique snowflakes are scientifically proven unviable? What then causes my impulse to go upstream? Am I just being destructive by not liking societys norms?

...

That's the thing, the natural laws for human communities are still very much developing. It's sort of like viruses set the rules for animal populations. Still, viruses haven't gone anywhere, so I'm pretty sure individualism can't be rooted out. There's an equlibrium to be found.

Another thing that came to my mind is scales. Although they seem to have a sped up evolutionary timeline there's much less room for variation for societies. Limited space leads to evolutionary dead ends. We might have rockets, but it will be a while until the civilization can expand outwards apart from exploration and gathering.

I think you mistook what I was saying. Our current society, the one you live in, is not the kind of hypothetical society I was talking about. I thought that was pretty clear.
Also, anarchy can be a societal value, too, so government really isn't relevant here: I'm not talking about law or legal systems here, but rather somethino deeper and more fundamental; im talking about cultural values and norms, what people take for granted and how they approach problems. That sort of thing.
TL:DR: I'm talking about theoretical societal engineering, not sociology.

I know how what you ment, but it just struck me that the reason I struggle to enjoy life might be cause I fight against the majority opinion. Not really that groundbreaking, but you expressed that in a very elegant manner.

Find the others. The seekers. The generative emergent archetypes.

evolution-institute.org/
zerostate.net/

The holoncene members who are awakening. Ragnarok comes and with it the age of Aquarius.

You're not far from the truth here- but don't get bogged down in preconceptions. Yes, the cells in the body are in many ways analogous to life on the planet, or in any ecosystem; selection acts on the system as a whole, as well as the constituent parts.

However, what I think you're misunderstanding, is how society works. How diplomacy is created, how human nature actually functions- it's as though you're putting the cart before the horse here. Look at it the other way around; what drives human behavior on a biological level? Why, a logic circuit that is constructed by neurons in the brain assimilates premises as knowledge, and formulates conclusions as decisions. What we decide is the most apt action to take depends on our values, which in turn are informed by what we perceive that we need; normally this is food, water, shelter, etc. first. Then, usually come social needs- maslow's hierarchy gets the basic idea correct, no need to go too in-depth here.

At any rate, all actions are based on this, and complex ones are formed as the result of complex formulation; intelligence. This is what allows humans, as a species, to decide that an action that might disadvantage us personally is best if it has a greater overall benefit and allows us to live with more/longer security. This, however, is not a simple thing to impart, thus it's forced to be so through laws, or religion, or other such structures. After all, living is so much easier if you can just murder your neighbor, steal his stuff, and take his wife right? Once the concept of eternal punishment and damnation comes into play, that's no longer the optimal solution, and so getting along becomes the priority.

The concept of the philosopher king is to have the one deciding upon these rules be also the one who understands the weights of personal benefit vs. group benefit, and can legislate accordingly. This is inverted most often with people seeking power for personal rather than group benefit; it's a conundrum.

con't

>We need people who do good to make the most money

This gets to the next problem I speak of. Those who do the most good must be given the power to do so, so long as they have the desire and capacity to understand the path forward. Incentivization of it as such leads to corruption- after all, a position of power does mighty good for the self, even at the cost of not using that power to help others. This is what has happened time and time again throughout the history of man, and is what many key thinkers have thought to combat. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in particular had a lot of interest to say about government and trying to prevent the degradation of society as the virtue of sacrifice is lost through the generations.

The United States is truly a wonderful country- at least in design- because of its ingenious system of checks and balances. The constitution is thought to contain those inviolable rights that define human existence. The three branches of government all purposefully attempt to prevent gaining power for power's sake, with the Judicial branch being the closest to the "philosopher king" talked about by some philosophers, and the congress acting as a sort of court of philosophers theorized by others. One of the problems of any legislative body is that needs and priorities will vary by climate- physical, political, resource-based, etc., and these needs change. The regionality is represented by the way we carve up congress, and the change is how we vote- this incidentally is also meant to reduce corruption, as the corrupt should not be necessarily voted for. This has gone so incredibly wrong, and it's depressing to think about how this could even begin to get back on track, however.

The only solution, as you and others have touched on here, is to educate the masses. To promote higher level thinking. But there are many complications, as one might think.

>Why

>Why is anything the case?

youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

Niggers are the cancer of society

No, you are.

>The only solution, as you and others have touched on here, is to educate the masses. To promote higher level thinking. But there are many complications, as one might think.
I agree. I have vivid memories of back when I was in school and will describe it here. I feel like nobody talks about it and it's sort of a taboo topic to state how things were bluntly

>The "cool kids" were most often the ones who didn't give a shit about school and focused on sports
>The exceptions to this rule were the intelligent kids who were also rich - only richness can make up for your primary "thing" being intelligence, since it gives you social confidence
>Ignorance was put forward as a virtue. And probably not even in a malicious way, but as a self defense mechanism
>This creates a situation where it appears that many people are putting forward ignorance and a focus on sports as a virtue, when really it was probably a self defense mechanism at the beginning, but it morphed into an actual advantage and an increased ability to get girls

Here's how it was ranked, in next post

>Rich, smart, good looking, sociable people
>Good looking people
>Rich people
>Funny people
>"Badass" drug people
>Genuinely good and nice people
>Intelligent people
>People without any of these

>Good looking
>Sociable
>Funny
>Rich
>"Badass"
>Genuinely good and nice
>Intelligent

The higher on the list you possess something the higher you are.

>Even if you are very smart and genuinely good you are ranked low if you aren't sociable, funny, or good looking.
>Even if you are sociable, funny, and rich, you are ranked below good looking people

I think it probably just comes down to a ranking of how much dopamine the brain produces by being around these people. The eternal problem. Our brains were calibrated for the trees, not for an intellectual global civilization. Here is how it should be in my opinion

>Genuinely good and nice people
>Intelligent people
>Funny people (for social commentary purposes and social lubrication)
>Sociable people, also for social commentary purposes but often these people are manipulative

And that is it. Nothing else should matter. Richness should not matter since it has nothing to do with virtue, but people want to be around for the minor chance of handouts and to appear rich themselves

You seem to rank intelligence pretty low altough smart people with some social skills are the ones who figure out how to be cool or funny. It's all about what you use your smarts for, it's seems natural that people tend to gravitate towards those who think about how to be around people than those thinking about math problems.

Money roughly equals influence, and if there's somebody rich but idiotic, you want to be around so he doesn't use his influence to make world actually worse.

System is fucked up, but there's some logic couple levels down.

Let me clarify, that is not my personal ranking that is the ranking I observed most people enforce during my time in school from a young age up to high school. I don't have any comments on universities since I withdrew socially at that point. That is not "my" ranking

Ask yourself, what is philosophy?

In my view most of it is garbage, an attempt to extrapolate information from the frameworks of thought which are extrapolatable from concepts and words we invented, which have no mapping to reality

Grammatic and semantic coincidences along with grammatically correct but nonsensical questions being taken seriously despite not describing anything about reality itself in a deep way

For this reason we should engage in "philosophical engineering" and try to solve these ethical problems through scientifically and mathematically designed solutions.

Why determine which system of governance is best if we can just use technology to take away the issues they were trying to solve to begin with?

Point still stands, there's reasons people act like they do. And while that is not your ranking, you are the one who observed this behaviour, there's always some bias that comes from the perspective. Someone with different standing on the social structure would rank these values in different order, even if observing the exact same set of interactions.

The most intriguing thing about all this for me is the backlash kids exhibit when adults are trying to mess with their social structures to counter bullying etc. It's almost like children have an innate feeling of "how it should be" independed of if the reigning system works out for them or not.

I think the bad kids serve a purpose to condition people to know how to deal with asshats before it would be fatal.

>Someone with different standing on the social structure would rank these values in different order, even if observing the exact same set of interactions.
This is an extremely good point that I've thought of but it left my mind soon after. I bet from the perspective of some of the rich kids or funny kids, they have their own insecurities and maybe even rank the groups in a completely different way

For instance the class clowns. They are often very well liked, but from what I've read some of them feel like clowns where if they are ever serious about anything people abandon them because their friends just use them for their comedy. The same could maybe be said of rich people

>The most intriguing thing about all this for me is the backlash kids exhibit when adults are trying to mess with their social structures to counter bullying etc. It's almost like children have an innate feeling of "how it should be" independed of if the reigning system works out for them or not.
Fascinating yes. I also observed this in myself actually. Sometimes teachers would step in and try to stop other kids from bullying me, but I sort of shrugged the teachers off and said "what, they aren't bullying me lol" then had a laugh with the bullies.

Sometimes I wondered if the bullies actually weren't just malicious bullies but they legitimately wanted to be my friends and didn't know how to interact socially except through degradation to artificially keep themselves above me, maybe from extremely low self esteem. I was pretty good friends with some of these people but they still bullied me in a way that I kind of didn't mind.

I don't really know how to explain it, maybe it's just my "bullying Stockholm Syndrome".

In summary of this thread, I wish the world's smartest engineers and scientists were working on solving the problems that our species faces instead of trying to solve problems of creating products for companies to sell and make profit

Spotted a nigger

See you could have written a useful post that took real thought to make, but instead you wrote this bullshit. Fuck you user.

Our current global society is inherently dysfunctional. There is no refutation of this. There are long term gain decisions we know to make right now, and short term gain ones. We are making the short term gain ones, over and over again.

When a person continually makes the wrong choice, they are dysfunctional and unsuccessful. Within their mind exists a flurry of emotions. Maybe lucid moments, glimpses realizations such as:
>I should try to be nicer to my children
>I should try to stop being so greedy
>I should try to get a better job to provide better for my family
>I should start exercising more and eating healthy
>I should stop watching so much TV

They know these are the right things to do, but they don't do them because they lack the motivation, the internal spirit of will necessary to constantly run at 100% efficiency and make the correct choice at every moment

What is necessary to do such a thing? Is only an Ubermensch capable of such a feat?

Similar can be said of society
>We should eliminate tax loopholes now
>We should eliminate some political corruption enabled by squirrely campaign finance laws allowing indirect bribery
>We should stop spending so much on our military in comparison to other things like education and healthcare for the poor which have a much greater return on investment for society and the individual
>We should stop allowing corporations to engage in regulatory capture of the government agencies meant to regulate them
>We should stop the prison industrial complex and make it mandatory that no for-profit prisons should ever exist

The list goes on and on my anons, there is nothing here that can be argued against in any reasonable way, these are all objectively decisions which would increase the quality of life and success of the US for instance.

So why don't we do them already? Because we are dysfunctional

So why are we dysfunctional? Is it the government system itself being too lenient on such things? Do we need a stricter constitution? Is it simply human nature that no matter what social structure they find themselves inside, they find a way to exploit it for their own gain? Is there a system that cannot be exploited?

If there were such a system, would it have to be inherently oppressive and a remover of free will and dissent to help us overcome human nature?

How do we engineer such a system? I don't mean "how do we ideologically reconcile our opinions on government systems", I mean how do we engineer a system that is better than the current one and eliminates all bullshit? We know what the bullshit is - everything in that list - short term investment horizon decisions made over long term ones, when the short term one is not immediately necessary.

We must create a government system where old men are encouraged to plant trees they will never see grow beyond a sapling. We must encourage a social system where altruistic behavior is encouraged and applauded above all else, but not to the point where one makes oneself exploitable - maybe through the system itself providing protection to those who engage in altruistic behavior

One caveat here is that if a system exists which requires altruistic behavior, if it is designed incorrectly it might end up that we have turned ourselves into a slave race to the system itself, dependent upon how it is enforced. Ideally everything should be in our hands, just with strong human incentives to keep the structure in place - this helps avoid some sort of AI overlord with machine gun enabled drones

Anons let me just ask earnestly - is this not a high quality thread or just rambling crap nobody cares about? I look on Veeky Forums right now and there is a bunch of garbage, OPs made of stupid memes and jokes with nothing of substance. Am I just mistaken in thinking this is a high quality thread or do you anons not even want quality?

No. Indirect inspiration maybe, not direct mapping. They're two very different things.

But as in a organism, there are cells cooperating and prospering and foreign bodies like viruses or bacteria living off thise cells, killing them so they may live.
There also are organisms competing with each other.
If you look at civilization you'll see alot of co-operation, symbiosis but also competition. It all boils down to survival instinct which is intrinsic to living system (consequence of darwinian evolution).
Resources are limited in enviroment and that leads to natural competition between cells, bacteria, viruses, flora and fauna. Some of these organisms startred coopereating since it helped their survival in the long run.
Of course we, as an intelligent species able to comprehend this concept and could work together to mutual benefit. This, unfortunately contrasts with the millions of years of evolution, and even in global society you would see competition, which is a good thing, seeing how this creates dynamic enviroment where progress and adaptation is possible.
Communist ideals sound good but we saw again and again that these systems don't work. Now there plethera of reasons why, the main reason being that humams are sly fucks capable of getting the upper hand in big enough society.
Whith the rise of nations people became capable of breaking the rules since people individualy were not as dependent on each other as in tribes for instance.
Any reasonable selfish person will now that the best course of action is to be selfless on some ocasions as it'll lead to better social status, helping his selfishness in the long run. As i stated above this principle works best in small communities as in those every person is important to survival of the community itself. Bigger communities like states create complex infrastructure that is, in modern times, less dependent on every person within that community, leading to possibility of increased destructive selfishness (mafia, druglords, gangs, etc..).

All that being said, i think bigger, global society would be benefitial in the areas like logistics and infrastructure. This would in term possibly better standart of living to many people and enable more complex and expensive projects like space elevators (for the sake of this argument). There would be the possibilty of centralized goverment which could lead to totalitarian regime, but this could be negated if global nation only cared about basic infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals etc..) and left place for free market so that big corporations would act as a counterweight to state.
You generaly need some reason for cooperation whether it would be impossibilty of survival without each other (small tribes, organels in eucariotic cells) or the thread of mutual destruction (today's world).
Nature of live is intrinsically competetive and survivalist, and even cooperation boils down to it. You could possibly create system which would include cooperation throught mutual tension within it.
These are just my thoughts as of now, i will no doupt add or even completely scrap these ideas as i grow older and gain more insight into life and our society. So please take this whole wall of shit with handfull of salt.

I like it, makes me think

There was study somewhere about crime exponentially raising after population of a community hit thousand. After that I've dreamed about forming a cult capable of mitosis. There would be "chomosomes" responsible for food, trade etc. and the chain of command is paired in a way it can be easily divided when the population his some cap. Divide doesn't necessarily need to happen physically, nobody has to move nowhere, but in the realm of governance, who do you work for and who you response to.

These cells can communicate freely around globe so technology is shared, but are also more or less self sustainable, so the competition is less about survival and more about the excess resourses.

No idea if this has ever been tried, or if it would work, but it seems aestethic and people tend to like aestethic ideas

Sounds like a good idea for sci-fi.
Just as a thought experiment. Implementing this concept in a human story could let you explore this idea further. There may be things you didn't acount for, and using some narrative could help you finding and deal with these things.
Similiary to how asimov explored laws of robotics, that led him to modify them and eventually, at the end of foundation series, introduce new law.
Although you could just write thesis of some sort, a manifesto, doesn't matter.
But it sounds interesting at least.
Please do continue.

The beautiful thing with humans forming cells with different functions would be to map a whole person with these interactons. A coloss, a metahuman, who percieves world like us but from a different perspective and whole another scale.

You are made of 70 trillion cells and microbes. If each of them were formed by thousand or so humans, the being would have to take interplanetary or even interstellar scale of existence. It may see human interactions as a chemistry, economics as biology etc. cause how living beings act form a baseline rules for it's world and existence. It may even start to form societies of it's own, and that kind of recursion strikes me as truly beautiful.

I know how delusional this sounds, but as you mentioned exploring idea with a book would crystallize it into at least conceptual realm. Brb, going to aquire literary skills and blow whole lotta minds

>nature is imperfect

I feel like this is a misleading view. Nothing that exists in reality is imperfect, because if it were somehow "mistaken" in some way then it would not exist. Imperfections arise as a result of our misunderstanding of reality, and "mistakes" are just natural occurences that happen differently from our subjective expectations of how the world should work. It is less accurate to say that we are imperfect, or that the world is imperfect, but instead that our comprehensive understanding of reality is not wholly accurate itself.

You've taken the first step, now take the second

That's a fascinating concept user. It may remove some of the efficiency gain inherent to large societies, however. Maybe you can create a way where the cell size evolves based on social conditions instead of being fixed at 1,000. Potentially social issues in the cell can be quantifiably measured to create a blockchain based "cell competition" which selects some cells for survival, and selects some to execute apoptosis and join others depending upon individual abilities and cell need

youtube.com/watch?v=rIEq305SizA

You're getting way ahead of yourself.
Congratulations on figuring out that human societies can be seen as a type of superorganism, but before attempting to use this knowledge to create the ultimate utopian system that will fix every problem ever you should at least try to figure out what the biology of such an organism is like, otherwise you will at best be no more successful than a veterinarian trying to operate a just-discovered alien lifeform.
Fortunately for you, someone (Oswald Spengler) already did this.
Unfortunately for you, the results indicate that your utopian ideas about as likely to succeed as the other thousands of utopian ideas that peolpe have come up with across the millennia. Big surprise, eh?

What if the whole universe is a super organism?

Check this:

peelified.com/index.php?topic=23582.msg1469805#msg1469805

Every moment in the universe is like taking a breath.

Thanks anons, two mentions of him now I will definitely look into his work. Does he have a canonical work I should start with if anyone's still in this thread?

user if you want the real red pill you need to realize that society being made up of individuals is boring knowledge that you are not powerful enough to do anything with. The perfect sized nugget of knowledge in this vein is that your perceptions and thoughts are made up of cells and networks of cells which interact and are influenced like other multicellular processes. And there is competition within these networks- sensory cells of different modalities compete for attention and resources to sustain firing because firing, being silent, receiving signals, or not can determine whether neural cells will survive, reproduce, grow, and expand their phenotype. The reproductive cell centers of the brain are tightly controlled and your thoughts and feelings are the battles of different "teams" of cells over survival and reproductions with the teams made up of neurons with similar phenotypes or input modalities that struggle within the context of outside stimulation.

This civilization is multicellular thing just ends in predictable cephalization that you are powerless to do anything but get rich and try to be a neuron in.

I disagree - for thousands of years we thought monarchy was the greatest system of organization yet it clearly was not. So we upgraded to democracies, and now we have democratic republics. You think there is no room for improvement?

humanity is literally a virus that is trying to figure out how to leave its host and prolong it's hosts life so it can find a way off and spread

You think anyone on this planet lives in a democratic republic? Plebs stay home pls.

Just to add to this you know I'm right. You know that Bush Jr. could make a call to his CIA buddies on a whim and erase you, your whole family. Putin could too even on American soil- countries are meaningless lies and the powerful will consolidate power just the same way that brain cells in your body can order you to kill thousands of skin cells just with a small scratch of your nails.

Okay anons I have a question

We are made up of individual cells which are not conscious, or potentially "lightly" conscious, for instance some cells are capable of processing stimuli in complex stateful ways - they may very well be conscious in a strange way we cannot comprehend.

And our entire bodies and nervous systems are likewise conscious. If we are the cells of the super-organism that is society, is it possible that we are part of a larger social consciousness, in the literal, non-metaphorical sense, which is not aware of us as individuals but has its own conscious experience, potentially moods or abstract meta-emotions we cannot comprehend?

I mean this in quite a literal way. I have a singular viewpoint, I'm looking out of my eyes right now and also hearing my keyboard and computer fan, and feeling senses from my skin. It could be said that my foot individually feels things regardless of what my eyes see. Similarly I individually am conscious regardless of what you see

Could society be a conscious entity of itself who has its own observer inside looking at the world from many sensory vantage points at once? Similarly, what if even exotic consciousnesses like future AI we create are actually part of this same consciousness? And beyond that, the universe itself has a consciousness emergent from these individual pieces

Sounds like hippy bullshit, but it also actually sounds like it's necessarily the case if we are aware of our modular nature which still somehow maintains a cohesive point of view

There are famous quotes like "we are a way for the universe to see itself" and I mean, what are the implications if this is literally true? And it is obviously literally true

The way we abstract things obscures a lot of complexity in small scales. Worlds fit there, why no consciousnesses.

>cells - individuals

By saying that time is cyclical, spengler also enforces this cycle. There's no reason to assume society cannot evolve out of a cycle and create a new one.

You could also assert that
>humans
>individuals
>:^)

Why did you stop reading there?

True, I bet there is consciousness. I bet plants are conscious. I bet mushroom mycelial networks are conscious.

>control f "China Brain"
> 0 results

Fucking hell, Veeky Forums here, your board is shit

>Needing something so obvious explicitly mentioned
A-user... I have bad news for you...

This. Why can't we learn from the past and stop indulging in these timelines that typically result in governmental decay due to corruption?