
Our microbiome challenges our concept of self - WalterSear
http://mindblog.dericbownds.net/2018/02/our-microbiome-challenges-our-concept.html
======
test6554
Whether or not your concept of self is challenged depends on your current
concept. If you think biology is applied chemistry, and chemistry is applied
physics, you're just fine.

~~~
gowld
As long as you understand that "you" don't exist, you are just fine.

~~~
red75prime
What are the practical consequences? Should I revoke your status as a being I
have general moral obligations to? Or should I extend my moral obligations to
all objects animated or not?

~~~
gowld
You have a moral obligation to the Universe inclusive of everything it
comprises, not any isolated parts of it.

------
chair6
Interesting philosophical questions on how oneself views oneself, especially
if you go back to the source paper at
[http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/jour...](http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005358)
rather than the linked extract. “[W]e have never been individuals...”

Microbiome is one of the things we're including in the Arivale program. Early
days on the research front, but fascinating stuff - our clinical team have
written up two less philosophical, more scientific articles re. correlations
of microbiome to health at [https://www.arivale.com/gut-microbiome-tmao-heart-
heath/](https://www.arivale.com/gut-microbiome-tmao-heart-heath/) and
[https://www.arivale.com/gut-microbiome-crohns/](https://www.arivale.com/gut-
microbiome-crohns/).

------
will_brown
I posted this comment
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923695](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15923695))
about the microbiome about 2 months that is related, of course I was down
voted into oblivion.

But essentially my point was that human genes are not determinative and work
hand in hand with the microbiome, where an analogy I used (though not my
original thought) is that the human (genes) are like a piano and the
microbiome is like the player.

One of the more interesting studies I have read included identical twins in
Africa, where obviously genes are identical, so is environment and diet, yet
one twin would be healthy while the other was malnourished. The conclusion was
it was the difference in the twins microbiome that was determinative and the
cause.

~~~
danieltillett
Will you are a lawyer (quite a good lawyer by my estimate), but you should be
careful when moving outside of your sphere of competency. Biology is very,
very complex.

Identical twins are not genetically identical (they typically all have small
genetic difference), but even if they were the cause for any difference could
be due to factors outside of the microbiome. There is no way any careful
scientist could conclude from one set of twins what the cause of any
difference between them was.

Edit. I apologise for my tone. I am just trying to explain why you got
downvoted.

~~~
will_brown
>There is no way any careful scientist could conclude from one set of twins
what the cause of any difference between them was.

The twin study wasn’t n=1 it was multiple sets of twins throughout the
continent. Either way the twin study wasn’t in my original comment, so it
wasn’t the reason for my being downvoted.

My comment regarded the fact that humans have relatively very few genes
compared to many other life forms, yet are obviously more complex, that
should’nt be controversial or downvoted. But I continued that the microsbiome
_can_ explain some of that complexity, for example here is article from
Cleveland Clinic regarding a study that concludes the microbiome can change
the way genes express themselves, not changes to dna, but the microbiome can
turn genes on and off.
[https://www.google.com/amp/s/health.clevelandclinic.org/2016...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/health.clevelandclinic.org/2016/10/billions-
bacteria-bodies-change-genes/amp/)

~~~
danieltillett
Humans don't have relatively fewer genes compared to other life forms. Humans
have less DNA than some species (salamandas are an example), but all animals
have around the same number of genes. The extra DNA in some organisms seems to
be (mostly) non-functional.

Yes the microbiome influences which genes are expressed.

~~~
will_brown
In the example I was given was wheat vs humans. A quick google search shows
wheat has 164,000 to 334,000 genes, compared to 20,000 to 25,000 for humans.

The way it was expressed to me at the time it’s scientifically surprising much
simpiler life forms have fewer genes. “This paradox has vexed scientists since
the discovery of DNA about 45 years ago,” notes Dmitri Petrov of Harvard
Universitys Society of Fellows, when discussing amoeba’s with a genome 200
times the size of a human. See:
[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2000/02/why-onions-
ha...](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2000/02/why-onions-have-more-
dna-than-you-do/)

As you suggest I should probably avoid topics outside my expertise, and
genetics certainly is, but I am passionate about health and nutrition, on the
edge of those topics the microbiome and genetics come up. Anyway I think was I
contribute on these topics deserves a conversation (reply) like you have
engaged in and not just downvotes.

------
foobar1962
>On the contrary, it means that the stakes of the natural sciences exceed the
expertise of the natural sciences and reach over into the arts. This makes a
close collaboration of the life sciences with the human sciences imperative.

Why do new findings like this lead people to conclude that “science needs
philosophy” It’s never the philosophers that make the findings.

And it’s not like the laws of physics will need to be re-written.

~~~
Retra
"Philosophy is dead" \- Stephen Hawking.

Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science, they do not have the
expertise necessary to do anything but pontificate on vagaries. Philosophy
these days seems more about finding clever places to hide religious beliefs
than it is about explaining the world as it is and answering questions in
useful and productive ways. Scientists do that now.

~~~
naasking
> Philosophers haven't bothered to learn modern science

Incorrect.

> they do not have the expertise necessary to do anything but pontificate on
> vagaries

Also incorrect.

> Philosophy these days seems more about finding clever places to hide
> religious beliefs than it is about explaining the world as it is and
> answering questions in useful and productive ways.

3 for 3, congratulations!

~~~
Retra
Excellent points. I stand refuted and corrected. Wonderful.

~~~
naasking
There's nothing to refute, your statements had just as little substance as
mine. If only there was some field of study which could discern valid logical
arguments and how persuasive we ought to find them. Someone really ought to
start such a field of study.

------
DanielleMolloy
I came across some of the microbiome research in the recent years, I know
about the hacker culture interest in fermented foods and do drink kefir semi-
regularly myself. But there appears to be a quite some correlation between
microbiome and, well, diet:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12820](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12820)
Aparrantly you can change your microbiome rapidly by eating differently.

When discovering effects for the whole organism, can’t it be that these are
correlations that have been found before in nutrition studies? Why is / isn’t
this a problem? Maybe I’m missing something.

------
lobo_tuerto
I wonder if these new discoveries about the microbiome can explain why on
disciplines like Zen meditation (Zazen), one has to focus her mind on a point
at the gut level.

Could these techniques somehow be aware of the gut-mind connection?

[https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-
conditions/the-g...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-
conditions/the-gut-brain-connection)

~~~
shripadk
Just an info: Focusing mind at the gut level is not specific to Zen meditation
but is instead part of Yoga Sutras of Patanjali
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoga_Sutras_of_Patanjali))
from which all these techniques are derived from. Specifically it is focusing
on the 7 centres of energy called Chakras. The gut level thing you talk about
is called the Manipura in Sanskrit or the Solar Plexus Chakra in English
transliteration.

------
nikolay
That's where the concept of soul fits right in. We cannot delineate between
"us" and the "environment" either - we constantly lose and acquire molecules
from it.

~~~
hippich
Any examples of molecules acquisition and losing?

~~~
grzm
Every inhale and exhale, for two.

------
heisenbit
There is a lot of truth in that - the microbiome is a key factor affecting out
nutritional intake. It affects how effective we take up energy but also
affects us through a multitude of chemicals all influencing the cells in our
body. Our health, out intellectual capabilities and our moods depend on it.

If the ego is part microbiome and we are consequent then we should have laws
that declare antibiotics tools for partitial mass murder or suicide.

------
Bartweiss
Warren Ellis, as usual, is ahead of the curve.

One of the most interesting characters in _Normal_ is a (seriously mentally
ill) futurist who conceives of her microbiome as a separate entity and talks
to it like she suffers from DID. It's a whole book about how a sufficiently-
obsessive focus on the future can break your identity, so this is a nice fit.

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
Is this worth reading if I loved Transmetropolitan?

------
zxcb1
The results from this study will probably be interesting:
[https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experime...](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/1010.html)

------
fullstackwebdev
GMO BT bacteria gets in your gut, kills your flora, releases toxins
(pesticides). Your body struggles, serotonin levels decreases. You can't
sleep, get depressed. Your doctor prescribes SSRIs. It interferes with your
reproductive system and quality of life.

~~~
seattle_spring
You should consider expanding your source of news beyond naturalnews.com.

------
tritium

      A car is not a car without the human, with the keys to the car, sitting in the driver's seat, in a state ready and capable to operate the vehicle, and in possession of valid paperwork in good-standing, proving that they are legally entitled to operate the vehicle.
      A car is not a car without the human, with the keys to the car, sitting in the driver's seat, in a state ready and capable to operate the vehicle.
      A car is not a car without the human, with the keys to the car, sitting in the driver's seat.
      A car is not a car without a human sitting in the driver's seat.
      A car is not a car without a human to drive it.
      A car is not a car without a human inside it.
      A car is not a car without an animal inside it.
      A car is not a car without an object inside it.
      A car is not a car without an engine inside it.
      A car is not a car without something inside it.
      A car is not a car without anything inside it.
    

Doesn't hold up. The car remains a car, so long as it is actually a car.

If you really want to challenge views about being a human, consider that each
of us all have been single celled animals for at least a couple of seconds, if
not minutes or hours, of our lives. It didn't stay that way, but it's an
incontrovertible fact for every last one of us, and indeed also for lots of
other organisms.

Plenty of passengers ride the bus, but the bus is not redefined by this.

~~~
narag
_each of us all have been single celled animals for at least a couple of
seconds_

That seems wrong to me because it conflates different identity concepts. That
cell wasn't _me_ , but more like a seed from where I was built. Actually, if
I'm not mistaken, identical twins come from a single embrio that gets
splitted, so with that reasoning both twins were the same person at one time.
I don't think so.

~~~
tritium
That's exactly what I mean about proposing a notion that serves as a challenge
to a point of view. I was pretty confident I was putting forward a statement
that someone would take issue with, even if it's part of a sentiment I buy
into.

Anyway, the original atoms and molecules of that first cell are long gone, yet
here we are. In terms of qualifying one's semblance of self, I think infant
amnesia also represents a significant developmental boundary, for "counting"
as a self aware human. If you don't remember learning to walk, was it "you"
that learned? It's a pretty fluid and blurry line for human existence.

~~~
chair6
Speaking of challenges to a point of view:

 _Plenty of passengers ride the bus, but the bus is not redefined by this._

Smell, sickness, graffiti, background noise, and even the occasional pleasant
conversation.. all things passengers bring to the bus that may not actually
redefine it but do potentially have lasting impact on the bus itself and shape
the experience for all parties involved.

~~~
posterboy
The whole problem is anthropomorphism. There is no bus, there am just I, and
the bus is part of _my_ experience. There are no other people, even -- only me
and that which looks and behaves similar to me. So I rationalize exterior
events as just as involuntary as my own thought. When I rationalize that as
free will, I must rationalize other exterior stimuli as expected, wanted and
willed, too, but then there is no interior left. Which is a contradiction, so
nihilism is the only solution. If that sounds like bollocks, I will still find
a way to rationalize that.

> Plenty of passengers ride the bus, but the bus is not redefined by this.

The busriding-experience is shaped, which is all that matters. How many parts
of a ship can you change until it's not the same ship anymore? There never was
a ship to begin with. Just a build. Perhaps this is why Americans love the
gerund. "building" is a process and an object at the same time.

> ... lasting impact on the bus itself and shape the experience for all
> parties involved

This prompted me to answer. I couldn't say it better.

