OTOH, the sense of self refers to sentience. It's more "who am I?" than "what am I?" For instance, it's what is fractured in dissociative disorders.
So, here, you can have your concept of self challenged without your sense of self being affected.
However, I agree that if I were inclined, then it could certainly be one of any number of factors (including mindfulness meditation or any serious conscious consideration) that prompts me to start thinking about or questioning my "self" as a sentient entity beyond just my physical being.
I just don't believe that such an outcome is inevitable or that those two experiences of self necessarily converge. That is, one can certainly question the former without ever considering the latter. In fact, I would wager that most who encounter an article such as this would fall into that category.
People think of themselves as a living organism but skin makes use of dead cells. At the other end people think of non organic tattoos and dental fillings as part of who they are. Beyond that, when driving you don't think in terms of this giant extra thing, it's also part of the fuzzy self.
Really, the core failure is the rather western insistence on clear separations and concrete ideas. I would posit that self as those resources under your control is probably a better fit for how people think than a simplified biology.
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/ and https://www.arivale.com/gut-microbiome-crohns/.
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.
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.
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...
Yes the microbiome influences which genes are expressed.
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 Universitys 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...
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.
I think what's more generally accepted is that genes work in concert with environment, of which the microbiome plays but one part.
Also, is the autonomic nervous system or the unconscious and nonconscious considered part of the self?
For instance, cars and jobs don't actually exist at the level of particles and fields, and yet we can say with certainty that I have a car that I drive to my job almost every day. These terms have sensible and precise meanings, even if we don't yet know their precise meanings.
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.
The scientific method _is_ philosophy.
I think it's very important to retain the ability to postulate above scientifically proven things.
That's just what theory is. Unless you mean postulating about things which are fundamentally unreachable by evidence, in which case I challenge the claim that they're ever important. (If they were important in a situation, then that situation would be an experiment that could confirm or deny them.)
Not all philosophy is like that, of course. For example this comment, which is definitely philosophical and I hope not wrong!
I'm not arguing with your initial point, articles like this and the subsequent claims about science and philosophy are usually wrong. But I realise, from the responses to you claim that a lot of people are quite ignorant about philosophy and its history in science.
There is a great quote in a Daily Nous article, about this: "many new disciplines have sprung forth from philosophy over the years: physics, psychology, logic, linguistics, economics, and so on. In each case, these fields have sprung forth as tools have been developed to address questions more precisely and more decisively. The key thesis is that when we develop methods for conclusively answering philosophical questions, those methods come to constitute a new field and the questions are no longer deemed philosophical."
Unless we metaphorically neutron bomb the humanities and start again nothing science discovers will have any influence on humanities.
Edit. Humanities graduates how about engaging rather than knee jerk down voting anything that questions your world view.
I have a degree in mathematics.
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.
> 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.
3 for 3, congratulations!
It is philosophy that gave birth to science is it is today. In fact, "science" was once known as "natural philosophy".
Science is a practical philosophy based on experimentation via the scientific method. It is a philosophy, that is, a way of looking at the world.
What about Scientism, the religion that considers science to be the "One, True Way"? It usually incorporates the reductive materialist belief system quite heavily.
And it is Scientism that arrogantly dismisses philosophy as some outmoded system, when in fact, Scientism is ironically a philosophical position itself, a religious one at that.
Meanwhile, philosophy as a whole continues to explore different ways of looking at the world unabated, because it doesn't get side-tracked by ridiculous religious dogma.
Meanwhile, science and the scientific method, those practical philosophical tools that have been very useful in the hands of those who care about positive and beneficial progress for all of mankind, continue marching on proudly, unconcerned by ridiculous religious dogma.
I've read less of Daniel Dennet, but he has been influential in the theory of mind and the direction that some AI research has taken.
When I think of modern philosophers, these are the giants.
It's funny that you mention that. While at undergrad I took a biology class taught by Robert Sapolsky (I consider him equal parts scientist and philosopher) where he philosophized on the origin of religiosity using scientific findings and research. Would you like ot know more: http://www.openculture.com/2014/12/robert-sapolsky-explains-...
They're not completely distinct fields of study, they operate on a spectrum as science and philsophy go hand in hand. The big questions in philosophy are somewhat neatly summed up in 4 questions: Who am I? What do I want? Why am I here? Where am I going? Substitute we for I, and then that pretty much sums up the questions science tries to answer.
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.
Could these techniques somehow be aware of the gut-mind connection?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
We're the shape, not the matter, even if the shape is built on matter. Memories are part of the shape, but you can lose memories, same as you can lose an arm and it's still you, for the most part.