It’s a nice analogy, and I think one can make an argument that brain corporations do seek to maximize their profits for a brain-related version of profits. (It does perhaps break down a little in that there’s no single CEO neuron steering the “corporation”.) I’ll add that, not only is knowledge distributed across all “employees”, there is also stored knowledge unknown to any active employee. The stored history of the corporation, which would be stored in corporate documents.
I did encounter a minor speed bump with regard to the idea that every neuron “knows who to ask” just because neurons cannot communicate directly with any other neuron. OTOH, in most corporations, neither can most employees. There’s usually a hierarchy or chain of command. But I think it may point to another small speed bump in that neurons are less specialized than people in corporations are.
Tbh I'm actually a little annoyed with myself for going with corporations as the analogy. I chose it because most people have experience working within a company, but really I just wanted any collective organisation where people manage to actually work together fairly effectively. I suspect some kind of commune or cooperative would be a better analogy, but maybe that's just my politics swaying me. A parliament or government might be closer? In the end, I suspect that our brains are organised far better than any organisation we have created so far, and one day our society's structure will more closely mirror the brain.
Are neurons less specialised? I 'The Feeling of Life Itself', Koch mentioned that there are lots of different types of neurons (I forget the number I'm afraid), and if we consider the positioning and specific role a neuron plays, I'd think they would count as very specialised. I mean, the physiology and means of communication for an employee are generally pretty similar across an organisation, but what we use them for varies massively.
Re hierarchy, if I remember correctly, the brains/nervous systems/minds of simpler organisms are much more hierarchical and straightforward. Although I can't remember where I'm getting this from so I may be wrong. But supposing that's true, it would support the idea that eventually society will evolve towards less hierarchical structures too. It seems true enough that we're gradually evolving towards greater democracy and equality (despite some speed bumps), and that more autocratic systems were previously more effective.
In any case I'm not too worried about the particulars. What really excites me is the idea that communication underlies cognition, rather than the reverse.
Heh. I know what you mean. A lot of the smaller organizations can potentially be a lot more fractious than our brains (usually) are. The military might be a comparable analogy. Everyone has a specific task, and there’s a lot of organization and communication. I agree brains are more structured. I doubt society will ever been that structured. I don’t think that would be pleasant — reminiscent of Huxley’s “Brave New World” (or George Lucas’s “THX-1138”).
Yeah, the specialization of people versus neurons is debatable. One the one hand, people are people (modulo variation); it’s their training that makes them most different. Likewise, neurons are neurons (ditto); it’s their position in the brain and their training that most differentiates them. Perhaps that’s what makes the military a good analogy. There are more constraints on behavior for individuals there.
I quite agree that communication underlies cognition (necessary but not sufficient — just like IIT).
As an aside, in a science fiction novel I read some time back, highly advanced aliens tell us that no species that is both hierarchical AND intelligent has ever managed to survive itself.
It’s a nice analogy, and I think one can make an argument that brain corporations do seek to maximize their profits for a brain-related version of profits. (It does perhaps break down a little in that there’s no single CEO neuron steering the “corporation”.) I’ll add that, not only is knowledge distributed across all “employees”, there is also stored knowledge unknown to any active employee. The stored history of the corporation, which would be stored in corporate documents.
I did encounter a minor speed bump with regard to the idea that every neuron “knows who to ask” just because neurons cannot communicate directly with any other neuron. OTOH, in most corporations, neither can most employees. There’s usually a hierarchy or chain of command. But I think it may point to another small speed bump in that neurons are less specialized than people in corporations are.
Overall, it seems a pretty good analogy.
Tbh I'm actually a little annoyed with myself for going with corporations as the analogy. I chose it because most people have experience working within a company, but really I just wanted any collective organisation where people manage to actually work together fairly effectively. I suspect some kind of commune or cooperative would be a better analogy, but maybe that's just my politics swaying me. A parliament or government might be closer? In the end, I suspect that our brains are organised far better than any organisation we have created so far, and one day our society's structure will more closely mirror the brain.
Are neurons less specialised? I 'The Feeling of Life Itself', Koch mentioned that there are lots of different types of neurons (I forget the number I'm afraid), and if we consider the positioning and specific role a neuron plays, I'd think they would count as very specialised. I mean, the physiology and means of communication for an employee are generally pretty similar across an organisation, but what we use them for varies massively.
Re hierarchy, if I remember correctly, the brains/nervous systems/minds of simpler organisms are much more hierarchical and straightforward. Although I can't remember where I'm getting this from so I may be wrong. But supposing that's true, it would support the idea that eventually society will evolve towards less hierarchical structures too. It seems true enough that we're gradually evolving towards greater democracy and equality (despite some speed bumps), and that more autocratic systems were previously more effective.
In any case I'm not too worried about the particulars. What really excites me is the idea that communication underlies cognition, rather than the reverse.
Heh. I know what you mean. A lot of the smaller organizations can potentially be a lot more fractious than our brains (usually) are. The military might be a comparable analogy. Everyone has a specific task, and there’s a lot of organization and communication. I agree brains are more structured. I doubt society will ever been that structured. I don’t think that would be pleasant — reminiscent of Huxley’s “Brave New World” (or George Lucas’s “THX-1138”).
Yeah, the specialization of people versus neurons is debatable. One the one hand, people are people (modulo variation); it’s their training that makes them most different. Likewise, neurons are neurons (ditto); it’s their position in the brain and their training that most differentiates them. Perhaps that’s what makes the military a good analogy. There are more constraints on behavior for individuals there.
I quite agree that communication underlies cognition (necessary but not sufficient — just like IIT).
As an aside, in a science fiction novel I read some time back, highly advanced aliens tell us that no species that is both hierarchical AND intelligent has ever managed to survive itself.