
How biological invaders challenge our idea of self and other - pmcpinto
http://nautil.us/issue/35/boundaries/parasites-are-us
======
awinter-py
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.

~~~
egjerlow
>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?

~~~
awinter-py
I'm not making a deep point; everything which is separate has a way of
enforcing inside vs outside. Some are robust (fort knox). Others are
temporary, diffuse and don't hang around (a fart). Some have instruction
content to help enforce their boundaries (i.e. DNA, a computer program, or the
army corps of engineers manual).

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.

~~~
awinter-py
emeritus bestselling british humorist terry pratchett ascribes consciousness
to the shopping cart and wrote about them like an invasive species.

------
hrc2
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
something about your comment makes me thing about cloud computing.

------
ommunist
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!

~~~
Kristine1975
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
The claim is not that there is an _immediate_ danger. The claim is that there
is a subtle, bad influence.

------
andrewflnr
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
>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
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.

------
Kristine1975
_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
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.

------
allisthemoist
_“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

