5 ms·

How biological invaders challenge our idea of self and other

65 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

ommunist 11y ago
The article does not mention widely distributed Toxoplasma gondii, that actually changes the behaviour of hosts in the interests of parasites. Think you like cats? Think again!
- proksoup 11y ago
  The article itself seems to be talking more about the perceived sense of self is, and how that might be affected by organisms that replace our existing organisms. The title led me to believe it might be something more like the gondii situation mention. There is perhaps an association between gondii and schizophrenia. Here is one meta analysis[1] "The results suggest that individuals with schizophrenia have an increased prevalence of antibodies to T. gondii. This association is consistent with other epidemiological studies as well as with animal studies." [1] http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/729.short http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3...
- Kristine1975 11y ago
  Toxoplasma gondii is a bit overrated in my opinion. Unless your immune system is compromised or you're pregnant, there's no scientific proof that there's immediate danger from it. And if your immune system is weak or you're pregnant, you have a good excuse to make someone else clean the cat litter ;-) Also my behavior is influenced by a lot of things outside my control: Genes, hormones, antidepressants[1]... what do I care if a parasite adds to the mix? [1] While I can control my intake, I can't control the side-effects.
  - im3w1l 11y ago
    The claim is not that there is an immediate danger. The claim is that there is a subtle, bad influence.
allisthemoist 11y ago
“To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.” ― Dōgen
awinter-py 11y ago
There are strong parallels between the personality concepts of self & other and the immune system. If you take the metaphor far enough anything that exists separately from the cosmic background radiation has a means for separating itself from its surroundings for some period of time. This is true for things that are alive as well as things we don't usually assign identity to: a cereal box has a cardboard flap to keep cereal in and bugs out. A star has gravity and gas pressure in equilibrium to keep most of its mass inside a radius. People who study consciousness (previously pure philosophers like david chalmers, increasingly mathematical physicists like max tegmark) are fascinated by this kind of thing.
- maroonblazer 11y ago
  Indeed. I'd add to the mix Derek Parfit. "Reasons and Persons"[0], most famously calls into question the notion of the 'self' and how illusory it is. It has had a profoundly positive impact upon how I view myself, others and my relationship to them. [0]http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824908X http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824...
- linhchi 11y ago
  I think consciousness is programed to first and foremost identify your skin to be your boundary (for survival). But then, when you train to master an external tool, like a bike, you feel the boundary of the whole system to be your boundary (for example: when you're able to manage the bike at incredbly flexible level, ie you control it at will). Same for cognitive medium (like mathematics, we are able to think in term of mathematical concept to express ourselves better in daily life matter -> we have more freedom), so augmented human seems far future, but tools are augmenting us everywhere. (Augment = expand capability). And the limit of my tools are the limit of my world. It's also true for other-regarding preference, if you identify someone (your kid) to be yours, you can take a cost for them. Or lovers, they self-interest the joy of each other.
- egjerlow 11y ago
  >If you take the metaphor far enough anything that exists separately from the cosmic background radiation has a means for separating itself from its surroundings for some period of time. >A star has gravity and gas pressure in equilibrium to keep most of its mass inside a radius. Although I think I see the contours of what you're getting at here, I would like some elaboration on these points. This statement is teleological, and if I was a pedant I would point out that the cereal box was designed while a star is what happens 'naturally' in a universe like ours. However, I am not a pedant ;) so would you care to explain this metaphor and what it is supposed to 'mean' a bit further?
andrewflnr 11y ago
It's not that hard. My self is the things that are under my immediate control. More abstractly, an object with an identity is something that behaves in a coordinated way (this lets you finesse the question of "what do you mean 'control'"). Self-hood is based on information, not gross physical properties and continuity. While not a panacea, this idea solves most or all of the conundrums in the article. Also, we have to get used to the idea that "selfhood" may be nested, and that DNA is an implementation detail, not anything fundamentally bound to selfhood. Cases where the parasite modifies behavior at the highest level (neurology) remain tricky.
- egjerlow 11y ago
  >this lets you finesse the question of "what do you mean 'control'" I'd say that this is one of the most difficult things about it, so as long as we're not answering this question, I agree it's not that hard (though I agree that the article didn't take these thoughts all the way). For example, the tongue-parasite mentioned in the article: I am not sure exactly how that parasite works, but if it responds exactly how you would expect a tongue to respond, is it then under your immediate control (If it doesn't, imagine a parasite that does, even to the point of transmitting tastes)? The fact that it does everything that your tongue does and something extra (stealing nutrition), is that what would make it not part of you? If so, what about artificial limbs that do everything the missing limb does but in addition does something else, possibly beyond my control (periodic internal maintenance, for instance)? I would say it should be regarded as part of my 'self', even though I cannot control all aspects of its behaviour.
  - andrewflnr 11y ago
    I wouldn't say the tongue-parasite is under the fish's control, but rather that the parasite is "deciding" to emulate a tongue for its own purposes. IIRC it will eventually take off and leave the fish to starve. I feel it's worth noting that there are a lot of functions of our bodies that we don't explicitly control. When describing them, we tend to use "other" language to describe them to the extent we don't control them, e.g. "my body did this" vs "I did this". Artificial limbs will fit into that framework just fine.
hrc2 11y ago
This article didn't touch on the idea of evolved dependence, which surprised me. Essentially, parasites were inside the body of most human beings over our evolutionary history, up until the last 100 years. The parasites secrete immune-modifying molecules[1]. And because we don't have parasites as often anymore, autoimmune disorders have exploded in prevalence. The thinking is that, in the same way that human beings and guinea pigs lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C because it was always available, some people lost the ability to regulate their immune system because parasites were just that pervasive. In other words, our ancestors lost genetic machinery that modulated their immune response because the parasites they had provided that service already. So losing those genes had no effect on their fitness. It's not a widely accepted theory, but it certainly challenges the notion of self in relation to parasites. 1: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/964350/ http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/964350/
- unfortunateface 11y ago
  something about your comment makes me thing about cloud computing.
Kristine1975 11y ago
When the fish opens its mouth, in place of a tongue you see a slimy, multilegged creature, its beady eyes staring straight at you, its creepy claws reaching out to grab you or anything else that looks like food. Now I know where the Alien's tongue comes from. On a more serious note: My "self" is what I want to be part of me. My fingers? I want them, so they are part of myself/my self. That botfly maggot eating my head? Don't want it, so not part of my self. Of course that only works for sentient beings. Does the fish "want" to have a weird creature as its tongue?
- egjerlow 11y ago
  And do you want your gut bacteria to be part of you? Only the part of them that doesn't make your stomach upset when you eat <something>? Though I instinctively think this definition sounds good, I think in the case of gut bacteria it doesn't hold up. They are an integral part of our well-being, but if we could engineer them to only respond 'positively' to food, surely we would. And yet, I would not say that those bacteria that make my stomach act up are less a part of me than the bacteria that don't.

65 points by pmcpinto 11y ago

The article does not mention widely distributed Toxoplasma gondii, that actually changes the behaviour of hosts in the interests of parasites. Think you like cats? Think again!

proksoup 11y ago
The article itself seems to be talking more about the perceived sense of self is, and how that might be affected by organisms that replace our existing organisms. The title led me to believe it might be something more like the gondii situation mention. There is perhaps an association between gondii and schizophrenia. Here is one meta analysis[1] "The results suggest that individuals with schizophrenia have an increased prevalence of antibodies to T. gondii. This association is consistent with other epidemiological studies as well as with animal studies." [1] http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3/729.short http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3...
Kristine1975 11y ago
Toxoplasma gondii is a bit overrated in my opinion. Unless your immune system is compromised or you're pregnant, there's no scientific proof that there's immediate danger from it. And if your immune system is weak or you're pregnant, you have a good excuse to make someone else clean the cat litter ;-) Also my behavior is influenced by a lot of things outside my control: Genes, hormones, antidepressants[1]... what do I care if a parasite adds to the mix? [1] While I can control my intake, I can't control the side-effects.
- im3w1l 11y ago
  The claim is not that there is an immediate danger. The claim is that there is a subtle, bad influence.

allisthemoist 11y ago

“To study the Buddha Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be actualized by myriad things. When actualized by myriad things, your body and mind as well as the bodies and minds of others drop away. No trace of enlightenment remains, and this no-trace continues endlessly.” ― Dōgen

awinter-py 11y ago

There are strong parallels between the personality concepts of self & other and the immune system. If you take the metaphor far enough anything that exists separately from the cosmic background radiation has a means for separating itself from its surroundings for some period of time. This is true for things that are alive as well as things we don't usually assign identity to: a cereal box has a cardboard flap to keep cereal in and bugs out. A star has gravity and gas pressure in equilibrium to keep most of its mass inside a radius. People who study consciousness (previously pure philosophers like david chalmers, increasingly mathematical physicists like max tegmark) are fascinated by this kind of thing.

maroonblazer 11y ago
Indeed. I'd add to the mix Derek Parfit. "Reasons and Persons"[0], most famously calls into question the notion of the 'self' and how illusory it is. It has had a profoundly positive impact upon how I view myself, others and my relationship to them. [0]http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824908X http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824...
linhchi 11y ago
I think consciousness is programed to first and foremost identify your skin to be your boundary (for survival). But then, when you train to master an external tool, like a bike, you feel the boundary of the whole system to be your boundary (for example: when you're able to manage the bike at incredbly flexible level, ie you control it at will). Same for cognitive medium (like mathematics, we are able to think in term of mathematical concept to express ourselves better in daily life matter -> we have more freedom), so augmented human seems far future, but tools are augmenting us everywhere. (Augment = expand capability). And the limit of my tools are the limit of my world. It's also true for other-regarding preference, if you identify someone (your kid) to be yours, you can take a cost for them. Or lovers, they self-interest the joy of each other.
egjerlow 11y ago
>If you take the metaphor far enough anything that exists separately from the cosmic background radiation has a means for separating itself from its surroundings for some period of time. >A star has gravity and gas pressure in equilibrium to keep most of its mass inside a radius. Although I think I see the contours of what you're getting at here, I would like some elaboration on these points. This statement is teleological, and if I was a pedant I would point out that the cereal box was designed while a star is what happens 'naturally' in a universe like ours. However, I am not a pedant ;) so would you care to explain this metaphor and what it is supposed to 'mean' a bit further?

andrewflnr 11y ago

It's not that hard. My self is the things that are under my immediate control. More abstractly, an object with an identity is something that behaves in a coordinated way (this lets you finesse the question of "what do you mean 'control'"). Self-hood is based on information, not gross physical properties and continuity. While not a panacea, this idea solves most or all of the conundrums in the article. Also, we have to get used to the idea that "selfhood" may be nested, and that DNA is an implementation detail, not anything fundamentally bound to selfhood. Cases where the parasite modifies behavior at the highest level (neurology) remain tricky.

egjerlow 11y ago
>this lets you finesse the question of "what do you mean 'control'" I'd say that this is one of the most difficult things about it, so as long as we're not answering this question, I agree it's not that hard (though I agree that the article didn't take these thoughts all the way). For example, the tongue-parasite mentioned in the article: I am not sure exactly how that parasite works, but if it responds exactly how you would expect a tongue to respond, is it then under your immediate control (If it doesn't, imagine a parasite that does, even to the point of transmitting tastes)? The fact that it does everything that your tongue does and something extra (stealing nutrition), is that what would make it not part of you? If so, what about artificial limbs that do everything the missing limb does but in addition does something else, possibly beyond my control (periodic internal maintenance, for instance)? I would say it should be regarded as part of my 'self', even though I cannot control all aspects of its behaviour.
- andrewflnr 11y ago
  I wouldn't say the tongue-parasite is under the fish's control, but rather that the parasite is "deciding" to emulate a tongue for its own purposes. IIRC it will eventually take off and leave the fish to starve. I feel it's worth noting that there are a lot of functions of our bodies that we don't explicitly control. When describing them, we tend to use "other" language to describe them to the extent we don't control them, e.g. "my body did this" vs "I did this". Artificial limbs will fit into that framework just fine.

hrc2 11y ago

This article didn't touch on the idea of evolved dependence, which surprised me. Essentially, parasites were inside the body of most human beings over our evolutionary history, up until the last 100 years. The parasites secrete immune-modifying molecules[1]. And because we don't have parasites as often anymore, autoimmune disorders have exploded in prevalence. The thinking is that, in the same way that human beings and guinea pigs lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C because it was always available, some people lost the ability to regulate their immune system because parasites were just that pervasive. In other words, our ancestors lost genetic machinery that modulated their immune response because the parasites they had provided that service already. So losing those genes had no effect on their fitness. It's not a widely accepted theory, but it certainly challenges the notion of self in relation to parasites. 1: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/964350/ http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2014/964350/

unfortunateface 11y ago
something about your comment makes me thing about cloud computing.

Kristine1975 11y ago

When the fish opens its mouth, in place of a tongue you see a slimy, multilegged creature, its beady eyes staring straight at you, its creepy claws reaching out to grab you or anything else that looks like food. Now I know where the Alien's tongue comes from. On a more serious note: My "self" is what I want to be part of me. My fingers? I want them, so they are part of myself/my self. That botfly maggot eating my head? Don't want it, so not part of my self. Of course that only works for sentient beings. Does the fish "want" to have a weird creature as its tongue?

egjerlow 11y ago
And do you want your gut bacteria to be part of you? Only the part of them that doesn't make your stomach upset when you eat <something>? Though I instinctively think this definition sounds good, I think in the case of gut bacteria it doesn't hold up. They are an integral part of our well-being, but if we could engineer them to only respond 'positively' to food, surely we would. And yet, I would not say that those bacteria that make my stomach act up are less a part of me than the bacteria that don't.