If human is part of Living System and is one itself, so what are General Principles to mimic when designing a human world?
A human is part of nature. So, I'm curious what would be a more natural way to design a human world (because it's all made up)?
What general principles could be copied from nature and transformed into philosophies, design frameworks, cooperation mechanisms and so on that would make a human world more inclusive?
Living Systems principles:
Networks that look like Fractals
Universe expresses itself through human creativity
Philosophy of all life as an energetic pattern that weaves into fractal networks
Symbiotic Creativity as The Way
Prototyping water drops stories
Experimenting if consciously feeling Love in everyday thinking and actions make impact on wellbeing
Helping people to sync the right and left brain through body observation
Question was sparked by Lynn Margulis thinking on symbiosis and evolution
A live thinking planet. Life on Earth regulates its environment. Environment modulates beings, being module Environment.
Properties of whole systems. Symbiogenesis. Emergent properties. Feedback loops. Leaps. Interdependence.
Science is a thinking process. Changes on culture.
Symbiosis drives evolution. Mito-chondria - symbiotic bacteria. Microbes rule the world. 4 bacterias, 3 events = all life.
Human is an ecosystem. Holobiont. We’re containers of/for Bacterias.
Cell runs the show (contols the organism), not DNA. Genome is only a database..
NEW Basics of Biology?
Life is a process, not a thing. Autopoiesis (self-making).
Smart Cells. Mutations. Cells can repair.
All beings are cognitive.
Source of Innovation: Symbiosis. Re-combine parts of the past.
We think, I am.
I like how L. Margulis talks about symbiosis as living together of organisms from different species for a prolonged period of time.
So, how does symbiosis happen? How can this be applied in a human world (society)?
How could helpfulness spread in society?
I added sub-questions also on the worlds of bacterias.
好吧，通過盲目複製叢林世界，我們將獲得叢林。盲目地模仿自然，我們就不會真正地進行創新，因此，從生物仿生學的角度來看，我認爲將自然的例子作爲類推和啓發法的啓發，而不是作爲最終答案，這是有道理的。如果我們純粹以生物模仿的方式走下去，我們最終將不得不擁有揮動翅膀的飛機和搖搖欲墜的船。關於“通用原則”-通用性如何？在自然的最深處，存在着物理定律，我們無法逃脫，它們只是給定的存在：它們告訴我們這個世界上有什麼可能，而生活和我們都沒有藉助計算機嘗試過所有這些一般法律允許的可能性。 （這是一個很好的問題。）//那麼，共生如何發生？據我瞭解，它是巧合的幫助，發展成互惠互利的關係，自然而然地發生在需求和能力的概率分佈相匹配時，就像在貿易關係中一樣：例如，pl鳥清理鱷魚的牙齒並進食牙齒之間的食物碎片（自然交易！）和某些信任障礙是隨着時間的推移有意識或無意識地發展而來的。海豚與人類共生的一個有趣例子：合作捕魚。因此，共生是一個由多個參與者組成的世界或市場而不是設計決策的現象。從某種意義上說，貿易是一種共生的進化，人類已經使用了這種思想，甚至通過先進的市場訂單匹配引擎將其自動化。我們所面臨的問題不是“如何共生”，而是“如何最大程度地靈活和公平地進行貿易”，我不知道有什麼本質上的例子，唯一的例子可能是作爲營養素市場的生物血液。代謝產物，有數萬億個細胞在交換資源，但那裏不存在貿易訂單，它更像是山谷和河流，具有一些神經激素調節作用。 Corpus callosum可以被認爲是左右半球之間的一種神經信號交換，協調左右半球的參與以形成一個單一的思維，有趣的是，東西方在中美之間將供應鏈脫鉤的過程似乎很相似。 （爲什麼左，右半球需要調解人來做他們的事情？（一個是邏輯的，另一種是藝術的）也許是因爲不同的運作方式需要不同的“政治制度”，然後是調解人（一個專門的市場，如體）整合他們的結果我們到底是模仿還是自己發明了這呢（畢竟不是通過仿生方法找到解決方案的方法），而是解決方案的好壞。重新設計世界市場以實現更多的“巧合”，這可能是一個重要的問題。
Well, by blindly copying the world of jungle, we'll get jungle. Blindly copying nature we would not be truly innovating, so, meta-biomimicriously, I'd think it would make sense using nature's examples as inspiration for thinking by analogy and heuristics, not as the final answer. If we'd go purely the bio-mimicry way, we'd end up with airplanes that flap their wings, and ships that wag their tails.
Regarding the "General Principles" -- how general? At the deepest levels of nature, there are the laws of physics, that we can't escape from, they are just there as given: they tell us what's possible in this world, and neither life nor us with our computers had tried out all the possibilities that those general laws permit. (It's a good question.)
// So, how does symbiosis happen?
From what I understand, it happens as coincidental helpfulness that develops into a mutually beneficial relationship, and occurs in nature sporadically as the probability distributions of needs and capabilities match up like in trade relationships: e.g., plover bird cleans alligator teeth, and gets to eat pieces of food between the teeth (a natural trade!), and certain barriers of trust are achieved either consciously or subconsciously evolved over time. A fun example of symbiosis between dolphins and humans: cooperative fishing. So, symbiosis is a phenomenon of a world or market of multiple players rather than a design decision.
In a sense, trade is a kind of evolved symbiosis, and humanity already uses the idea, and even automates it through advanced market order matching engines. We're having a problem not "how to do symbiosis", but "how to make trade maximally flexible and fair", and I know no examples in nature of that except, perhaps the organism blood, that serves as a market of nutrients and metabolites, with trillions of cells exchanging resources, but the trade orders do not exist there, and it's more like valleys and rivers, with some neuro-hormonal regulation. Corpus callosum could be thought of as a kind of neural signals exchange between left and right hemisphere, coordinating the participation of left and right hemisphere to form a single mind, and interestingly, East and West seem go a similar route through China-US decoupling the supply chains. (Why would left and right hemisphere would need a mediator to do their thing? (one being logical, another artistic) Perhaps because different modes of operation requires different "political system," and then a mediator (a specialized market, like corpus callosum) to integrate their results. Did we bio-mimic, or re-invented this ourselves?
After all, it's not how the solution was found (via bio-mimic or not), but how good the solution is. Answering a question of how to redesign world's markets to make more "coincidental mutual helpfulness" happen, may be an important question.
Good category to think and link ideas further :)
Lynn Twist inspires me to think about Plenty-Thinking: there's enough for everyone vs some people will be left behind..
From "Symbiotic Earth" movie, I noticed the following:
Recycling (everything is reused)
[Mindey], how could I discover and organise Living Systems principles into a list of four as you did for MRSGREN idea?
[Ruta], well, I'm not sure there's a recipe how exactly. As Stephen Wolfram says, some things just need to go through entire computation (i.e., or entire evolution of thought process) to arrive at insights, and there are no shortcuts. That said, I've provided a rundown of how I thought, when commenting on MRSGREN. I'm sure you can do something similar.
從Mansoor Vakili寫作中，我注意到了生命系統的以下行爲：-混沌和隨機性-自組織-分形（一個模式在一個水平上重複系統並形成一個整體的網絡）-網絡（較高級別的目標告知較低級別的目標；以及作爲智能）-最小的工作量（具有簡單方程式的複雜系統）以及以下活動系統模式：-簡單性-靈活性-質量-相互依賴“系統思考的是諸如集成，直觀，整體，連接性之類的關係；諸如保護，合作，質量，夥伴關係，靈活性，觀察性，資產管理之類的價值觀；以及諸如觀察，積極，寬容，寬容，和平，充滿希望和實行無條件的愛。” 〜曼蘇爾·瓦基裏（Mansoor Vakili）
From Mansoor Vakili writing, I noticed the following behaviours of Living Systems:
Chaos and Randomness
Fractals (a pattern repeats on all levels of a system and forms a network, as a whole)
Networks (higher level goals inform lower level goals; and as intelligence)
Minimum effort (complex systems with simple equations)
And the following Patterns of Living Systems:
"Systems thinking is about relationships such as integrative, intuitive, holistic, connectedness; values such as conservation, cooperation, quality, partnership, flexibility, observant, asset management; and state of mind such as being observant, positive, forgiving, tolerant, peaceful, hopefulness and practicing unconditional love." ~ Mansoor Vakili
Mindey says that the main patterns are elements and sets.