The Model of Selfish Collectives of Information and Processing
Society is a collection of multiple individuals. Within it, numerous individuals influence each other in various forms.
To analyze the interactions and the structure and nature of society, I have contemplated two types of social models so far: the Dual-Faceted Model and the CAO Model.
These two models differ in their analytical objectives and perspectives, but they also share common properties and structures. By organizing and extracting these common parts, I aim to deepen our understanding of analysis models common to complex systems like society and their properties.
Dual-Faceted Model of Society
The Dual-Faceted Model I propose analyzes society by separating two perspectives: one concerning the physical desires, ideals, goals, and demands thrown at an individual from various people and organizations, and another based on the individual’s judgments and actions in response. Figure 1 illustrates this concept.
The first is the Essential Facet. In the Essential Facet, goals and demands are laid out flat, encompassing individuals with desires and ideals, organizations, communities, cultures, and ideologies.
The second is the Existential Facet. In the Existential Facet, individuals making judgments and actions are laid out flat. Multiple organizations, communities, familiar cultures, and ingrained ideologies that an individual belongs to or is involved with are linked to a person’s existence. The individual also exists in the Essential Facet and is connected to their own existence.
Through this connection, various goals and demands are cast from individuals, organizations, communities, cultures, and ideologies in the Essential Facet towards individuals in the Existential Facet. The individuals in the Existential Facet decide which goals and demands to prioritize based on their abilities, values, and circumstances, and strive to contribute to them.
This model conceptualizes society as a network where the existence of individuals, their desires, groups such as organizations and communities, and intangible entities like cultures and ideologies are interconnected and influence each other.
Network of Concepts Based on the CAO Model
I also propose a model called the Network of Concepts. In this model, individuals are Agents who engage with multiple real-world Objects, each with corresponding Concepts, and strive to align reality with these Concepts. This concept is abbreviated as the CAO Model. Figure 2 illustrates this concept.
Multiple individuals partially engage with the same objects, each holding a concept for these objects. If their concepts align, they collaborate to bring the object closer to the shared concept.
Conversely, if their concepts differ, they compete to align the object with their respective concepts. In cases of competition, individuals may engage in competition, conflict, negotiation, or compromise with others.
Even when individuals are involved with different objects, complex relationships can arise if these objects interact with each other. If the interaction between objects harmonizes as a result of each being brought closer to their respective concepts, an indirect cooperative relationship forms. However, if the interaction between objects leads to contradictions, an indirect competitive relationship emerges.
Commonalities Between the Two Models
The Dual-Faceted Model and the Network of Concepts (CAO Model) share commonalities.
First, both models feature abstract concepts like essence and concepts, and individuals act primarily in accordance with these, making choices and judgments. Essence and concepts can be seen as motivators and directors of individual actions.
Secondly, both models have actors — existence in the Dual-Faceted Model and agents in the CAO Model — whose actions contribute to the essence or concepts.
Selfish Utilization Relationships
When contributing to essence and concepts is structured in a way that maintains or strengthens them, the chosen essence and concepts are likely to persist longer and gain influence. These essences and concepts, even without having will or intention, can objectively appear selfish. They seem to use existence and agents as tools for their own persistence and strengthening of influence.
On the other hand, existences and agents may be structured to receive various forms of reward for contributing to the optimal essence and concepts. An understandable example is receiving money for contributing to a company in modern society or gaining sustenance through hunting and gathering in primitive communities. Besides money and food, rewards can include status, honor, approval from others, enjoyment, and a sense of spiritual fulfillment.
Such existences and agents, even if not strongly conscious of it, can objectively appear selfish. They seem to use essence and concepts as tools for their own purposes: maintaining life, fulfilling various desires, and enhancing economic, social, and spiritual wealth.
Thus, essence and concepts and existences and agents are in a relationship where they mutually use each other for their own purposes. Regardless of whether they have selfish intentions or will, they can be objectively viewed as being in a selfish mutual use relationship.
Selfish Mutual Self-Definition Relationships
Existences and agents select the essence and concepts they contribute to through their actions. Given the unpredictability of the future, these choices inevitably become arbitrary. Therefore, selections are made based on preferences, intuition, or luck.
If negative outcomes result from these arbitrary choices, reconsideration of these choices may occur. Positive outcomes encourage repetition of similar choices. Over time, these arbitrary selection methods evolve into the identity and individuality of the existence or agent.
Since the selection method narrows down to those likely to yield positive outcomes, objectively, this could be seen as a result of selfish self-definition.
Conversely, essences and concepts are not indifferent to any existence or agent. Involvement with unsuitable existences or agents could diminish the survival and influence of the essence or concepts. Therefore, focusing on suitable existences or agents can be advantageous for gaining survival and influence.
In this case, essences and concepts also objectively engage in selfish self-definition by selecting existences or agents that are advantageous for gaining survival and influence.
Selfish Collectives of Information and Processing
Essences and concepts require the capability to be preserved. Preservation here means not just being retained but also being referable by existences and agents. Moreover, to strengthen influence, making it physically widely referable is important.
Meanwhile, existences and agents need the capability to act. Acting here involves not just moving but also selecting priorities from multiple demands from essences and concepts.
From this perspective, essences and concepts can be considered to have the nature of information. Existences and agents can be said to have the nature of processing information.
Considering the above properties together, society can be understood as a collective of information and processing in selfish mutual utilization and self-definition relationships. Understanding society in this way, the human brain’s capacity to store vast amounts of information and perform complex processing to pursue various desires seems necessary for forming and developing complex societies.
Figure 3 illustrates the concept of selfish collectives of information and processing. The feedback loops and identity within this figure will be explained further.
Evolution and Development Through Feedback Loops
The existence of selfish mutual utilization relationships between groups of information and processing indicates the presence of bidirectional feedback loops.
From the perspective of information, there’s a feedback loop where information becomes the input for information processing, which, as a result, strengthens the survival and influence of the original information.
From the perspective of processing, the feedback loop is such that information, whose survival and influence have been enhanced as a result of processing, in turn, strengthens the survival and processing capacity of the processing itself.
Through these feedback loops, the collective of information and processing in a selfish mutual utilization relationship is likely to retain information and information processing with greater survival strength and influence, as well as enhanced processing capabilities.
This implies that information and processing evolve over time, leading to the development of the entire collective composed of groups of information and processing.
Diversity Through Identity
The selfish mutual self-definition relationship between groups of information and processing implies the existence of two types of identity.
The first type of identity is defined by the information selecting the processing it involves with to maintain and enhance its survival and influence. The second type of identity is defined by the processing selecting the information it contributes to in order to maintain and enhance its survival and processing capacity.
Both identities distinguish between self and others by selecting certain entities and not selecting others. The choices of what to select differ for each piece of information and processing, creating diversity within the groups of information and processing.
Generally, as the collective composed of groups of information and processing develops, diversity increases. With increased diversity, there’s a higher likelihood of the emergence of information with greater survival and influence, as well as information processing with higher survival and processing capabilities. This can accelerate the evolution of information and processing, contributing to the overall development.
In Conclusion
This article has highlighted how society can be systematized through the model of selfish collectives of information and processing, with a focus on societal models.
The concept of selfish collectives of information and processing is not only applicable to models of society but can also be extended to broader concepts.
The Internet and the Web have developed through the evolution of information and information processing, which are in a mutual utilization and definition relationship.
Genes carry genetic information, and organisms process this genetic information to function and replicate genes. Genes and organisms are also in a mutual utilization and definition relationship.
From a systems engineering perspective, I conduct personal research on the origin of life, supporting the idea that life’s emergence was preceded by the complex chemical evolution of inanimate chemicals, leading to the birth of life.
I believe that feedback loops for self-enhancement and identities for self-definition were key in this chemical evolution. This suggests that even before the emergence of life, the world of chemical evolution contained a pattern of selfish collectives of information and processing.
Thus, models analyzing society as a complex system of individual ideals and desires, organizations, communities, academic fields, cultures, and beliefs can also serve as models for contemplating other complex systems, such as intelligence, biology, and inanimate matter.
Exploring models useful for analysis across various fields is considered a crucial step toward gaining new insights and understandings.
