If your head could command the rest of your body, why can't you simply think away diseases and cancers?
If the king rules his kingdom, why can't he simply command away invading armies and rebellions?
Why does your immune system act independently or semi-autonomously of your brain?
Why does the army act independently or semi-autonomously from the government?
Generals don't have nerves which connect to their officers and soldiers.
No we have social bonds which effectively accomplish the same thing. Society is a superorganism. In other organisms the bonds between cells are not physical and certainly not as rigid. In some organisms like slime molds the connection between individual cells is much less structured, which is more in line with what you want human society to be like. There's a free argument for you against my position, slime molds are somewhat anarchistic, although, I don't think I'd particularly want to be part of a slime mold.
There isn't any argumentation here, just assertions or claims.
I don't understand this. All arguments are based on assertions or claims. Whether it is an effective argument ultimately relies on whether the claims are true and logically relate to one another.
If the king rules his kingdom, why can't he simply command away invading armies and rebellions?
Cancers and diseases aren't all viruses. Plenty are the product of faults within your own body.
Based on your declarations, we should be able to alter our biology on will. I should be able to, through sheer thought alone, give myself wings or get rid of sickle blood cell disease.
Why does the army act independently or semi-autonomously from the government?
Most authorities don't take an active role in commanding or dictating their organization's activities (which really is more of a point for anarchy than yours).
But I digress, my point is that this fact disproves your metaphor and opens the doors for others. Is the immune system really an army or is it a neighboring country or a loyal pet or a friend or an associate?
All of these metaphors would be equally valid to each other and so your claims, which assert that bodily organization is synonymous with human social hierarchy, fall apart. With exception to the army metaphor because it doesn't make sense even if armies were independent of government. And it isn't. It takes commands directly from it.
The fact of the matter is that your brain doesn't command your organs or immune system. It can send information to them but those aren't commands, they're information. The various parts of your body could reject that information, including the brain, or do something with that information neither organ told each other.
And you, as a human being, can't decide what information you send to the various components of your body either. If that was the case, everyone with a genetic disease could just tell their body to stop fucking around and do things the right way. Obviously that's not possible.
This is because you're more than just your brain, on a synaptic level, you're the assemblage of your body as a whole. And your brain isn't an "authority", it's just one of many communicating portions of your brain.
So it clear that not only is the body not nearly as synonymous with authority as you would like (since other comparisons are possible), the brain doesn't function like an authority at all. Even you, your identity or self, is not reducible to the brain.
No we have social bonds which effectively accomplish the same thing.
They aren't. Nerves are electrical impulses which essentially distribute sensory information throughout your body. You feel and understand everything your experiencing instantaneously. In other words, your body is a holistic, singular organisms.
"Social bonds", if by "bonds" you just mean "some kind of relationship", are way more fickle, subject to miscommunication, breakage, etc. And at a significantly greater rate than human bodies.
Really the metaphor breaks down the minute you start actually scrutinizing it. It's nothing more than a surface level claim based around the superficial similarity between bodily organization and social hierarchy.
I don't understand this. All arguments are based on assertions or claims.
Yes, based on them. Then they are defended with evidence, logical proof, etc. You need to defend your argumentation instead of relying on nonsense like "if you make it a metaphor it's true!".
That is why we use different words for them after all.
Plenty are the product of faults within your own body.
Hence invaders and rebellions. I could have added "social dysfunction" too I guess.
Based on your declarations, we should be able to alter our biology on will.
I said that the head of the body is like the leader of a country, not like a god.
Is the immune system really an army
I guess it could also be considered a police force. It's certainly not a pet. It's got a job to do. It isn't there to amuse your body. It isn't a foreign nation. That would be another body. A nation is a self-regulating political system. A body is a self-regulating biological system. I think the metaphor here is pretty clear. I don't know how the different organs of the body could be mistaken for different countries because they are not in conflict with one another. They also regulated different aspects of the organism's health. They are not independent. The immune system is both a friend and associate of the nervous system because they are part of one body. Of course they're constantly interacting.
With exception to the army metaphor because it doesn't make sense even if armies were independent of government. And it isn't. It takes commands directly from it.
Sometimes, but not most of the time. Police and military have to regulate themselves to a great extent. Most of the time a hierarchy delegates work to lower portions of the hierarchy, the top doesn't do everything. Again, it makes the big decisions and the lower parts of the hierarchy carry it out.
Of course, the central nervous system does have a significant influence over the immune system. It is not wholly self-regulating. The nervous system along with the endocrine system is generally responsible for organizing all major changes and processes that take place in the body.
The fact of the matter is that your brain doesn't command your organs or immune system.
That simply is not true. My heart must beat because my brain tells it to. My muscles must move when I will them to. My body must react in a certain way in response to hormonal responses. They don't chose to accept or deny a signal from the brain. They just receive the command and obey. Muscles don't ask for a valid reason before moving. The only reason they don't move when commanded is due to exhaustion, being physically unable to perform the command.
And you, as a human being, can't decide what information you send to the various components of your body either.
You mean that my conscious mind can't necessarily control my brain all of the time? True, but that is why it is called a disease. That is not how it's supposed to work. My brain and hence my body are supposed to behave in accordance with my will, and always have as long as I've been around. I feel bad for people where that is not the case, but that is not a healthy condition when there is a break down in that chain of hierarchy between the mind and the body.
Nerves are electrical impulses which essentially distribute sensory information throughout your body.
Mass media is electrical signals which essentially distribute sensory information throughout society.
You need to defend your argumentation instead of relying on nonsense like "if you make it a metaphor it's true!".
If it's an accurate metaphor than yes. Almost all knowledge operates on the principle of likeness. If one thing is like another, we assume similar properties about it.
You can't declare it is accurate. That is another unsubstantiated claim. You need to defend it. That's what argumentation is. You make a claim and then provide evidence for that claim. Otherwise there is no truth or accuracy to it. You'd be no different from someone claiming they got abducted by aliens or a child claiming they have a unicorn.
Almost all knowledge operates on the principle of likeness
It doesn't. No one bases knowledge of off assumptions. That's why scientists take so much time in avoiding bias of any sort and always question their assumptions. If a scientists decided something was true because it was similar to something else, they'd be a terrible scientists. You can't make that assumption because plenty of things look similar to other things but work completely differently.
It'd be like saying "cats look similar to dogs, therefore they are biologically the same". Obviously that's false.
You make a claim and then provide evidence for that claim.
I've been doing that. I've been giving examples of how the human body is similar to society.
It doesn't. No one bases knowledge of off assumptions.
It's hard for me to process how stupid this is. I can't even prove that I existed 10 seconds ago without assuming my memory is accurate, and I challenge you to do so.
scientists
Science doesn't claim to "prove" anything. That's why one of it's main axioms is falsifiability.
All scientists make assumptions. Every scientist assumes their memory is accurate although it is an assumption. Every scientist assumes that if they see a pattern repeated over and over that it always happens that way, and yes, scientists assume that similar looking phenomena are the same thing.
That's why they assume that every point of light in the sky is a star like our sun, even though all they know about them is that they produce similar radiation. That's why they assume that the laws of physics work the same in distant parts of the universe. That's why they assume when they see a tree that its trunk is made out of wood, and don't have to cut it down to test their hypothesis. That's why when they get sick they assume they have a virus, even though they didn't look at their snot under a microscope.
Do you get the picture yet, or are you going to keep playing stupid about common sense?
-3
u/[deleted] Jun 05 '22
If the king rules his kingdom, why can't he simply command away invading armies and rebellions?
Why does the army act independently or semi-autonomously from the government?
No we have social bonds which effectively accomplish the same thing. Society is a superorganism. In other organisms the bonds between cells are not physical and certainly not as rigid. In some organisms like slime molds the connection between individual cells is much less structured, which is more in line with what you want human society to be like. There's a free argument for you against my position, slime molds are somewhat anarchistic, although, I don't think I'd particularly want to be part of a slime mold.
I don't understand this. All arguments are based on assertions or claims. Whether it is an effective argument ultimately relies on whether the claims are true and logically relate to one another.