neuron, man and society

Here is an example of a neural system mapped out a way analogous to the cartoons posted on this website. Each of the boxes in this diagram corresponds to a part of the human brain. Each part, which neuroscientists refer to as a "nucleus", can be analyzed in terms of electrical signals, called action potentials. As discussed in the introduction, the number of action potentials produced per second by a neuron can encode information and messages. Each nucleus of neurons serves as a computational center that receives information as action potentials, processes it through spatial and temporal integration, then transmits results again as action potentials. By analyzing networks of nuclei and their transmissions, neuroscience has developed accurate and insightful models that show how the human brain works.


I see it as possible that society works, and can be analyzed, in a way similar to the human brain. Biology, psychology and sociology all seem to agree that there is no clear boundary that can sharply define the individual. Rather, the sense of self and personhood that convinces each of us that we are discrete beings is a neurological, evolutionary and social construct. In practice, there is no enduring boundary between the neurological centers known as nuclei, the physical self and larger social organizations. While different phenomena, all share a common pattern of existence. It, I or we, all material terms we use to differentiate nodes in a more general network of communication.

My argument is twofold. First, the human mind is less cohesive and defined then traditionally thought. It is an evolving entity adapting through genetic nature and environmental nurture. Surely psychological phenomenon such as "multiple personality" are evidence of the arbitrary nature of our physical bodies. Second, social units of organization are less static and solid that usually conceived. Rather society is composed of poorly defined units constructed through a process social interaction. Taken together, these two points suggest that there is no real difference between the neural networks in our brain, and social the social networks present in society.

In fact, the shape and order of the brain is a product of social experience. Just as the neurology and sociology are so intertwined, the same tools of analysis that work in neuroscience should also work as a valid methodology in the analysis of social interaction. The same computational and network models used in neurobiology may make accurate predictions about social networks. As social networks become computationally intertwined with the human mind, scientific frameworks we use to analyze the biological phenomenon might be relevant to our understanding of the social phenomena.