There isn't anything in principle wrong with discussing whether an institution should be considered intelligent. What's at issue is the way you're going about it.

Here are some suggestions to improve your post:

Have a thesis with somewhat defined terms, if you're using intelligence, how is it going to relate to consciousness, collective consciousness, collective intelligence - how are tissues intelligent in the same way institutions are?

There is scientific evidence for the notion that intelligence is fractal, that our cells are intelligent, that a collection of cells in a tissue is intelligent, that a collection of tissues in an organ is intelligent, that a collection of organs is intelligent (e.g., us), and that a collection of organisms in an organization is intelligent, and if organizations join together to work together (e.g. associations) those would be intelligent, too. — ken2esq

That is the sort of thing you could turn into an argument. Except the fractal claim, which isn't elsewhere in your post. You seem to be advancing a thesis that intelligence is present in a composite entity if it is present in each of that entity's parts. That is the kind of thing you could advance an argument for. There isn't an argument or a question about it though. Only speculation.

Oh, if you think the idea of superconscious influence is totally insane, delusional, completely anti-logic, anti-science, then WTF do you call FREUD???? His famous id, ego and superego, the three parts of our mind?!! The SUPEREGO is the influence of organizations, of our society? He literally proposed that we are influenced by our organizations to which we adhere, he merely was unaware of the new scientific notion that these organizations are actually intelligent, are basically intelligent life like us, albeit they are to us as a forest is to a tree. You think Freud is insane, delusional? You think me citing notions that align with Freud should be deleted because they are too crazy and delusional?? — ken2esq

Speculation with other speculation on top. It would be an interesting thread to look at how you could apply psychoanalytic categories to institutions as if those institutions had appropriate minds.

The major problem with your posts isn't the attempted themes, it's the execution. If you put more effort into forming an argument for anything you've said it'll be better.

albeit very novel and perhaps earth-shaking — ken2esq

:brow:

There is scientific evidence for the notion that intelligence is fractal, that our cells are intelligent, that a collection of cells in a tissue is intelligent, that a collection of tissues in an organ is intelligent, that a collection of organs is intelligent (e.g., us), and that a collection of organisms in an organization is intelligent, and if organizations join together to work together (e.g. associations) those would be intelligent, too. — ken2esq

The whole is greater than its parts. We are called intelligent beings for a reason. An agent. If you're arguing that the parts make up what a human being is, then it sounds like you are committing the fallacy of composition.

"Fractal" in this environment would imply intelligence at each level would be the the same - if magnified it would be what we normally call intelligence - and if intelligence implies consciousness, then our cells are conscious in the same way we are. There is no evidence of this.

Your other threads I looked at seemed for me too long. A few paragraphs and some of us here drift off. Maybe be more concise.

There are numerous threads on reddit which discuss this from various angles. Just search for things like: "are cells conscious."

The fractal nature of our biology doesn't quite work the same way. — Vaskane

Thanks. I learned something.

Abstract

Fractal geometry allows structures to be quantitatively characterized in geometric terms even if their form is not even or regular, because fractal geometry deals with the geometry of hierarchies and random processes. The hypothesis is explored that fractal geometry serves as a design principle in biological organisms. The internal membrane surface of cells, or the inner lung surface, are difficult to describe in terms of classical geometry, but they are found to show properties describable by fractal geometry, at least sectionwise and within certain bounds set by deterministic design properties. Concepts of fractal geometry are most useful in characterizing the structure of branching trees, such as those found in pulmonary airways and in blood vessels. This explains how the large internal gas exchange surface of the lung can be homogeneously and efficiently ventilated and perfused at low energetic cost. It is concluded that to consider fractal geometry as a biological design principle is heuristically most productive and provides insights into possibilities of efficient genetic programming of biological form.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1767856/

Maybe the deleted thread wasn't holding up to the template for thread posting? While posts can vary in quality without a problem, a new thread needs to present a thesis and an argument that is clearly defined. It could be that you failed this rather than the point you were making.

Then again, I think that there are a lot of threads started that ignores this praxis, but when it comes to scientific topics, the argument quality needs to be especially well written, especially if it's about a claim that isn't wildly within consensus.

Like, a basic thing that I cannot see in your argument is if you're making a conclusion based on Reductionism or Emergentism, is it saying that the smaller parts are aware of the whole or does it functions as a Complex Adaptive System?

Because fractals are so overhyped in pseudo-science that it's being used in all sorts of different ways without any scientific rigor whatsoever. Do you have links to published papers we can look at instead of pop-science videos?

Ken, I've been coming here for quite a few years. I'd say: Why not join quietly and make a few comments, get the hang of how things are done, as you would with any new (to you) group of people? Why shout?

This argument doesn't get off the ground unless you explain what you think is meant by intelligence, let alone what justifies giant leaps like...

If our subordinate parts - organs, tissues, cells -- are our collective subconscious — ken2esq

As for references to Freud, I personally am deeply interested in him. This summer I went to his old apartment and consulting rooms in Vienna at Berggasse 19 and was awed just to be there. But you'd have to put some work in, to relate his views about the subconcscious to your speculations about 'intelligence', even to a Freud-fan.

appreciate the feedback, I'll work on these issues. But the link above to Youtube IS to scientific evidence that intelligence is collective and fractal. You repeatedly say there is no evidence for this, but that is just wrong.

Moreover, there is no evidence AGAINST this. Where is the paper demonstrating the organizations are NTO intelligent or conscious? Or that cells are not?? It does not exist. Do you require some one to make an argument to establish that cells are not intelligent or conscious if they suggest that they are not at the outset of their post? If not, that is not rooted in logic, but is an appeal to authority, the notion that something is more likely true simply because people have believed it longer WITHOUT a shred of evidence or logic supporting that.

Ken

The State is just one superconscious entity. No logical reason ANY organization of people would not have a similar super consciousness. If you suggest this is true because Hobbes said it, you are committing the logical fallacy of appeal to authority.

Ken

No, it actually doesn't. How does the presence of fractals in both living and inanimate structures present a flaw in my suggestion that consciousness is also fractal?

No evidence our cells are intelligent?!!! I literally linked above a Youtube video by a SCIENTIST explaining how he had discovered that cells, tissues, organs, organisms and organizations all display collective intelligence that is all the same thing, albeit in different orders of magnitude in complexity. You are literally claiming that you know FOR SURE, as fact, that cell are not intelligent when we both know you have not ONE IOTA of actually scientific proof for this, not one argument to show this is the most logical assumption to make. You literally are insisting it is true because YOU have always assumed this was true and never heard anyone suggest otherwise. That is your application of logic? SMH...

Ken

How is me suggesting that when conscious, intelligent life forms at any level. of the hierarchy - single cells, organs, people, etc. -- unite to form a larger entity, that that larger entity then that births a new singular identity in that unity, a higher consciousness. Gee, that seems to be the whole becoming greater than the parts. Your suggestion that the whole is greater than the parts seems to actually support my theory.

Ken

Put in work to relate it? Freud literally posited a subconscious, conscious and superconscious Id, Ego and Superego. He literally defined Superego as societal influences. Which is ONLY different from my theory of Super Conscious organizations influencing us for their own self-interest, to the extent he never conceived that groups of people could be intelligent beings. Yet the youtube video I linked above is scientific evidence that they are, that collective intelligence exists at every fractal level of united life, from cells in our body to organizations of people.

How is it so hard to see the obvious analogy that as we are comprised of living cells, so our organizations are comprised of living organisms? Our organizations have an organic body -- people are organic matter -- and they have something better than neurons. They have the BRAINS of the people within them.

Suggesting that organizations are not truly alive or intelligent because they do not have neurons or all their organic matter is not bound together into a physical singularity, is akin to a cell in my body arguing that there's no way the human being it is part of could be intelligent or conscious because, hey look, that human has no nucleus! He has no cellular membrain! No way could he be conscious, what a crazy notion, he is just acting out in analogous to intelligence, but is not really intelligent, just the result of the decisions and actions of the individual cells that comprise him! It's a flawed argument if our cells make it about us, and equally flawed if you make it about organizations.

Look, did you ever hear anyone suggest that there is no alien life anywhere in the Universe but Earth, and you thought, wow, what INCREDIBLE hubris. I mean, set aside any other argument or logic or reason, but to think we are so special, so unique...it's inherently a BAD starting assumption.

In the absence of knowledge, your STARTING ASSUMPTION should be that the unknown is LIKE the known, not unlike it. If I go to an Island no person has been to and see a human there I don't know, I should not ASSUME he likes to eat rocks and sit on scorpions. The most reasonable STARTING position is the he is similar to me. Yes, it will not be completely right. I may go to shake his hand and in his culture it is an insult so he hits me. Sure. But does that mean instead of going to shake his hand, you knee him in the balls figuring that might be how his people say hello, because even if you would hate that, he's different, so maybe he likes it. Is that a sound approach to applying reason to the unknown?

Of course not. In the absence of knowledge, you extrapolate from the known to the unknown as your starting assumption / theory. Try to falsify THAT FIRST before making assumptions the unknown is NOT like the known. Seriously, this is basic stuff.

So if I am alive, and I am also conscious and intelligent, and I notice my cells are alive, should my starting assumption be that they are NOT conscious or intelligent? How about the universe. I'm conscious. I don't know if the Universe is or not...should my STARTING assumption be that it is not or that we live in conscious universe?

Hmm. Organizations are made of living organisms the same as humans are made of living cells. I am conscious...Should my starting assumption be that organizations are NOT conscious? Hmm.. Well, regardless, the science supports collective intelligence of organizations. Even if it did not, this is really the better starting assumption in the absence of evidence either way.

Ken

If intelligence includes consciousness, then our organizations are conscious, intelligent beings, no different from us albeit a magnitude higher than us on the ladder of fractal collective intelligence. — ken2esq

Are you saying intelligence is always conscious?

If intelligence includes consciousness, then our organizations are conscious, intelligent beings, no different from us — ken2esq

Who is running the organizations?
How can organizations be conscious witout us?
Do organizations have a life of their own? Are they living organisms? Because only living organisms can be conscious.

Let me try a different approach.

Consider climate change. I believe it threatens human existence and we are headed to extinction because we are failing to take the necessary steps to become sustainable on this planet. We are committing species suicide through apathy. I think many agree with me, to the point people are defacing great works of art to call attention to this. By one account, 97% of climate scientists agree we face imminent extinction unless we immediately do FAR MORE than we are doing.

Yet, about half of Americans, the conservatives, argue we should IGNORE the issue because the have heard that at least a few climate scientists disagree and say we are fine, this is just solar activity, and also some conservative pundits have suggested that this is all a money grab by those greedy climate scientists. We all know how greedy climate scientists are, not like those trustworthy fossil fuel corporations.

My brother is in the conservative camp and after going around with him over and over on this, I finally came up with what I felt was the ultimate "winning" argument which is this:

Let's ASSUME that we simply DO NOT KNOW if humanity is or is not threatened with imminent extinction unless we immediately and radically reduce and stop our use of fossil fuels and convert to clean energy sources. Neither he nor I are climate scientists. To us, this is all hearsay. So, the real question is not whether climate change is a real and imminent extinction threat or a harmless and exaggerated result of solar flare activity, the REAL question is this:

In the absence of certainty whether all humanity will go extinct in a century or so unless we convert immediately to clean energy, what is the prudent and reasonable course of action?

If a doctor tells you that you will die unless you get a lump removed and another doctor tells you that it is harmless and you keep going to doctors and they keep saying the opposite of the doctor before, so after going to 10 doctors,3 say it is harmless and 7 say you will die if it is not removed. And removing it is NOT a life-threatening surgery, but it is expensive and inconvenient. Do you get it removed or not? Of course you do.

The fact is, if we do NOT act as if the extinction threat is real, and we are wrong, the result is extinction of humanity preceded by decades of the worst human suffering in all of history, suffering and death of our children and grandchildren.

And if we DO act as if the extinction threat is real, and convert immediately from fossil fuel to clean energy, there will be a lot of big changes in how we live, though that may only be temporary while we increase our clean energy resources. But no matter how inconvenient, no matter the adversity that results, it is infinitely less than the the harm of total extinction of humanity. PLUS we have the "silver lining" that we now have oceans where the fish are not all dying out and going extinct or becoming too toxic to eat, and we now have clean air, and the world is just a much cleaner and more beautiful. PLUS it is established that fossil fuels will run out, and we WILL eventually have to switch to renewable energy anyway. So this is a change we'll need to face anyway.

Ultimately, in the ABSENCE of certainty which scientists and pundits are right, the only reasonable approach is to treat the threat as real.

If organization are intelligent, conscious beings just one step up the fractal life ladder, and thus are like any life, mortal, imperfect, desiring survival and growth and caring very little about life forms on lower levels of the ladder, and they can influence or sometimes dictate human behavior, then you turn to consideration of what such an entity might do if progress endangers its existence, or if avoiding extinction by climate change requires its death, it seems those beings would imperil human survival if let them eke out a bit more time alive. That explains why humanity is dragging its feet on ending its use of fossil fuels and converting to renewable energy. The conscious religious organizations need to keep people stupid, uneducated, illogical, anti-science and anti-reason to survive, but that is also why the refuse to accept the truth of climate disaster. The fossil fuel corporations need to keep us using fossil fuels because they die when we convert to clean energy. If there is a chance these things exist as I theorize -- which is not contradicted by any science, nor any logic or reason, but rather seems to follow basic rules of logical extension -- which threatens our extinction if true, maybe ACT as if it is true, try it on for size, take it for a test spin before just summarily rejecting it.

If I'm wrong, just another woo-woo theory like scientology or Christianity.

Ken

What scientific study did you cite for that claim about why priests molest children? If they accepted a religious "calling" that is the superconscious entity for that religion demanding they surrender their free will, and at that point they are automatons, and can be made to do inhumane things that no human would do.

Question: Why would a human molest a small child, which seems utterly abhorrent by all human standards?
Answer: They would not, it was a higher consciousness that views us as we view ants that took over control of that human.
See, this theory answers questions as to how certain people can to such seemingly inhumane things.

Ken

No. Computers are intelligent but not conscious.

Ken

You are making such a fundamental mistake.

How can you even ask, "How can organizations be conscious without us?" What part of WE ARE EQUIVALENT TO CELLS ON THE BODY OF THE ORGANIZATIONS do you not understand? That is like asking how we can be conscious without our cells. No one is SAYING they are conscious without us. We are them, the same way trees are the forest. They are NOT without us.

We are living because our parts are organic and alive. If an organization consists of a collection of human beings, human beings who are organic and alive, in what way are you failing to see that they are equally alive?

Watch the video at the top on collective intelligence. Human intelligence is exactly the same as the intelligence of cells, tissues, organs and organizations, they are all just on different magnitudes of complexity. We are on a fractal ladder of life forms wherein we are NOT the king of the mountain. What the heck kind of egotistical hubris!! What are the odds we are so damn special? Really? That is your logical argument? That humans are just really really special and unique? You want a trophy? Maybe consider what if we ARE NOT the epitome of ascendance in the universe, but just cogs in the machine, just midlevel lackeys? Seriously, the assumptions you people make on here. The logical fallacies you throw out left and right... Review the standard list of logical fallacies and try to avoid them.

Ken

No evidence our cells are intelligent?!!! — ken2esq

OK, this guy is legit. A lot depends on how intelligence is defined, at least for me. Do cells think as well?

The Levin Lab:
We work at the intersection of developmental biology, computer science, and cognitive science. Our goal is to understand degrees of intelligence at multiple scales of biological, artificial, and hybrid systems; we use these insights to develop interventions in regenerative medicine.

If organization(s) are intelligent, conscious beings just one step up the fractal life ladder, and thus are like any life, mortal, imperfect, desiring survival and growth and caring very little about life forms on lower levels of the ladder — ken2esq

If. Very big 'if'. This is a very careless argument. It starts from an apparently-reasonable premise, namely the obvious threat of climate change, and an appeal to 'be reasonable' and 'weigh the balance of probabilities'. But then that perfectly sound appeal is co-opted in support of a questionable philosophical thesis. It borrows from different disciplines, including evoloutionary theory, to push the argument that 'we are equivalent to cells in a body'. And that is a highly contestable, metaphorical argument. It might be something along the lines of 'we are like cells or parts of a greater whole'. But there is an entire philosophical sub-discipline devoted to this issue, namely, 'mereology', which is the study of the relationship of parts and wholes, and questions such as 'is the whole greater than the sum of its parts?' Yet your whole approach since joining has been that this is simply an obvious fact, which you, somehow, have arrived at, and that everyone else should accept on the basis that you're saying it.

Your posts strike me as a grab-bag of ideas, some of which have potential, others are wildly unfounded speculations, which you insist are obvious, because you think they're obvious, without however making the case for them. If you wnat to think philosophically, it takes a much more patient and deliberate approach, where you take propositions one at a time, and thoroughly explore them, taking objections into account. You might be able to do that, but you're not doing it yet.

Ken, chill out. We're people, not receptacles for you to dump your ideas in. Meet us half way. This is a society. Take an interest in us first, then we might take an interest in you. You're lucky to have got the engagement you have in this thread.

Some people here are even panpsychists who may be naturally sympathetic to your views. There's one guy on here who thinks that any randomly defined object has its own unitary consciousness, say three and a half marbles in a jar of 100, because he thinks it solves the combination problem. He is tolerated because he has arguments, despite being insane. You are clearly less insane and you may even be right, but you haven't shown why yet.

Watch the video at the top on collective intelligence — ken2esq

This is an example of what not to do in a group you have only just joined. Demand they do what you say.

It is absolutely NOT a very big if. Did you look at the studies on hive mind / consciousness of a hive of bees? Scientists now believe a hive of bees IS a singular, intelligent consciousness, not just the imitation of one. So if bees -- not touching, separate creatures, no physical connection, no mass brain -- give rise by being in same group, same hive, to an intelligent, conscious hive mind, how the heck do you claim it is a big "if" to suggest the VERY SAME THING happens to people?

The big "if" is that humans are DIFFERENT from what we observe. When we see that a drug causes cancer in mice, our first assumption is NOT that it does NOT cause cancer in humans because we are not mice. Our assumption is that it DOES therefore likely cause cancer in us, too.

You are the one who has the weaker logical position, and needs to explain why your starting assumption is we are immune from the hive mind effect that we understand now exists in bees.

Also, do you really think "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck" is illogical? Is unsound? That it is better to think "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is probably some complex set of natural forces that just looks a lot like a duck but is not." Because if you look at how social groups and identies behave in a coordinated fashion, seek to grow and survive, etc., you will see they actually LOOK and ACT exactly as you would expect from a singular intelligent consciousness. So why do we think it is unsound to start with the assumption, "okay, maybe they are a singular intelligent consciousness" rather than "no, they cannot be, how nuts to think that."

You are on very thin ice for a philosopher.

Ken

It is absolutely NOT a very big if. Did you look at the studies on hive mind / consciousness of a hive of bees? Scientists now believe a hive of bees IS a singular, intelligent consciousness, not just the imitation of one. So if bees -- not touching, separate creatures, no physical connection, no mass brain -- give rise by being in same group, same hive, to an intelligent, conscious hive mind, how the heck do you claim it is a big "if" to suggest the VERY SAME THING happens to people? — ken2esq

OK, this is an argument from analogy, which is interesting. The difficulty is, how similar do two things have to be to make the argument convincing? Are we similar enough to bees? Is there a default position in arguments from analogy; do we favour similarity and validity, or dissimilarity and invalidity?

For example: If you hit a human with a hammer it makes a noise because it feels pain. Interestingly (or not) if you hit a rock with a hammer is also makes a noise. Can we conclude that the rock also feels pain, by analogy with the human?

Maybe if you didn’t sound like a spoiled adolescent with delusions of grandeur, it’d be worth taking your claims more seriously.

Scientists now believe….. — ken2esq

Some scientists may make such a claim, but it’s a far cry from established fact. I’ve started watching the Michael Levin video posted….there’s no mention of the word ‘fractal’ anywhere in it. I don’t think it supports the argument you’re making.

.there’s no mention of the word ‘fractal’ anywhere in it. I don’t think it supports the argument you’re making — Wayfarer

Pop science usage seems to be anything that is wiggly and is wiggly upon magnification. Mandelbrot's creation carefully derived in the complex plane is another matter. Maybe other pop usages as well.

I listened to the Michael Levin video. Clearly an influential biologist. But there's no warrant in anything he is saying for the claim that organizations are intelligent. It's faulty logic: because organisms embody intelligence, and organisms are organized, then organizations are intelligent beings.