How biological invaders challenge our idea of self and other
nautil.us
nautil.us
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.
>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?
At the point where an object ceases to use pure physics and starts to use information to defend its boundary, the rejection of non-self is often acquired early on. (with obvious selection bias).
If you want to rule out any supernatural stuff, you model it as: the cereal box is part of a system that includes general mills, kids like you, and this grrrreat breakfast. Most of the information content of the system is at general mills (infectious) and the consumer (defense). Tony the tiger is a plot to play kids against adults and get those boxes into households. So is putting the boxes on the bottom shelf at supermarkets.
The even creepier view is that the cereal box has some independent existence and the box is gaming general mills to propagate its existence.
Before you object that the information content and reproductive machine of the box are external, consider a sperm cell or a seed pod. Neither of these has the full information of its system; neither is self-serving. Sexual reproduction also means that in normal practice (ignoring lizards and parthenogenesis), no individual has the full machinery of the species.
Note: I'm not ascribing intellect, intention or consciousness to any of these objects. Just drawing the boundaries of information in convenient places. It's not crazy to say that a cereal box exists as a separate thing. Once you say that, you have to consider whether it exists separately from general mills (it does, other companies use it).
Your process hangup, evolved vs coalesced vs designed, is an important distinction and may bias the sorts of forms that emerge. Evolved and designed end up being similar; both are shaking up information particles until something emerges that can propogate itself. Thomas Edison set out to design a light-bulb but he didn't set out to be born as thomas edison; the ball was rolling down the hill when he started. Not to take away from people's inventions, but if you compare across 100 alien worlds, maybe there are patterns about when the lightbulb is invented, and most worlds do it after certain other pieces are in place.
Another example is the eye: this is an evolutionary form that shows up when pigments and neurons are in the genome but something more is needed. A wire gets crossed and there is no turning back.
Since it's an unbroken infinite substance, once united you can experience and observe things quite apart – as if the whole of universe becomes accessible to your sense of awareness.
The yoga or unity happens by gradually peeling the layer of false ego (I-ness) that creates the impression of separation in the first place.
The ego is built on labels we assign to ourselves and to protect its existence it makes us do selfish stuff. That's why the 8 limbs of yoga has its first two limbs as the virtues and moral conducts that one should follow to pgrogress on the path. Like For instance, truthfulness, non-violence, non-stealing, non–collecting,a balanced sexual life, essentially means control over your senses and living without over-indulgence and so on.
If you observe these principles carefully they're exactly the type if followed with sincerity make our actions and thoughts more selfless causing ego to break gradually.
still posture and smooth deep breath helps in regulating the otherwise ever-wandering mind – the mind is where the feeling of separation resides. Those virtues also help in reducing the chattering of mind while doing meditation. Meditation helps in silencing the mind by concentrating on a particular form or formless for ever-increasing length of time – when the mind is silent, one goes beyond the mind and that's when the unity or yoga occurs with the consciousness.
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.
[0]http://www.amazon.com/Reasons-Persons-Derek-Parfit/dp/019824...
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.
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.
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...
Cases where the parasite modifies behavior at the highest level (neurology) remain tricky.
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.
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.
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?
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.
― Dōgen