Blurring the line of Distinction

Here's an interesting philosophical thought: where does one organism end and another begin? Dawkins treads this territory in his latest chapter and it is quite fascinating. First he discusses social insects, how bees, ants and termites have infertile drones, that actually work towards the continuation of their genes, in the sense that do everything for the queen, who is the only reproducer. In this sense they almost all work as one organism.

Furthermore he cites lichen which is a symbiotic relationship between a fungi and an alga. They are completely reliant on one another and aren't very far from being a single organism. He then brings up the question, could there be other things that have evolved from being their own organism through a symbiotic relationship into part of another organism. He gives the mitochondria as a possible example. Maybe it was it's own organism in the primordial soup.

And of course he ties this into genes, saying his thesis that they are the true unit of life. As opposed to individual organisms. So far it's hard to disagree with him, even look at rogue DNA, a.k.a. viruses, don't exist on their own, but they are basic.

However, why don't we take this one step further? I have come to the conclusion that distinctions are merely a function of the human brain and do not exist without a consciousness. For example, the only thing that distinguishes sound from other waves is that is the range of waves that our ears and brains detect, they are otherwise indistinguishable. Why wouldn't all matter be this way? Distinction is a product of perception. Light is the exact same way, and in fact as we've seen quantum physics leads to some even more bizarre speculations. Since until light and apparently all matter is determined it is in superposition, a mere probability, it is not distinguished. The only reason a table is different from a frog is because our brains have made that distinction. Otherwise differences seem to become more and more superficial. Could humans working together become an organism, or maybe the internet, or anything? And even organisms themselves are made up of smaller organisms called cells. And those of molecules, as are inanimate objects. Suddenly distinction is truly superficial.

Buddhism and Hinduism have had this insight for thousands of years. The chariot parable is a common example. Is a chariot it's wheels? But wheels are not a chariot. Is a chariot it's chair? But a chair is not a chariot, et cetera. If it's not the parts that make it up, then what is a chariot exactly? Even with this mind problem definition becomes meaningless.

Even Dawkins vaunted genes are admittedly by him hard to describe exactly. They have no exact size or unit. They just seem to have consistencies going from generation to generation. And they can be split up every generation, though only slightly, what once was a gene might be only part of that gene in the next generation. The only thing really holding it together is the fact of consistency through generations. Could this slippery undefined piece really be the central unit of life? Again seems to become another superficial distinction.

This stuff just fascinates me.