Meanwhile, here's something that could have gone in the climate change thread, but the natives are restless so I think it safer here.



Note: I have no reason to believe that Philip Prince is any relation to Prince Philip.

Oh sorry. I don't know how much of the details are philosophically important per se, it just reminded me of the organism in your video because what the organism is changes over time -- it's not a crisp and neat divide as even the cells that once composed the organism become metabolically defunct and yet continue to tell the killer cells that they are a part of the organism by having the protein on the outside of the cell-wall which tells the killer cells "Do not Eat"

At least, in one version of cancer. I'm not sure how far the metaphors can be pushed here -- "needs further research" :D

Also the idea that the self-other can be reduced to hinging on the functioning of a protein network seems reductionist, but there could be some interesting implications for the mind-body problem depending upon what we learn and how we'd want to interpret what we learn.

But really I just thought it was friggen' cool. :D

Some more thoughts that may not be worth it:

Metaphysically -- if self/other is a complex of physical proteins performing a function then it seems we'd at least overcome the hurdle of nominalism which uses reductionism: Here is a physical explanation of self/other which relies upon an assemblage rather than a cogito -- so the "I think" cannot be a pure, self-seeing clarity unless it is somehow not associated, at all, with the body which makes it up.

The person who believes the self to be a soul will want more, but the physicalist will see that even in the practical realm of immunology self/other is not some singular divide

Metaphysically -- if self/other is a complex of physical proteins performing a function then it seems we'd at least overcome the hurdle of nominalism which uses reductionism: Here is a physical explanation of self/other which relies upon an assemblage rather than a cogito -- so the "I think" cannot be a pure, self-seeing clarity unless it is somehow not associated, at all, with the body which makes it up. — Moliere

The functioning seems to me to be more like a makers mark, or a password, or a signature - in other words it is exactly a biological name/label and arbitrary at that if I read wiki aright.

And now I'm thinking "tribal markings" as the social equivalent.

Anyways, the world is indivisible so biology, psychology, sociology, have to create divisions with labels and talk, otherwise everything is mush. 'I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together.'

The functioning seems to me to be more like a makers mark, or a password, or a signature - in other words it is exactly a biological name/label and arbitrary at that if I read wiki aright.

And now I'm thinking "tribal markings" as the social equivalent. — unenlightened

"Tribal markings", insofar that we understand them in a wider cultural context as fulfilling a multitude of functions, I think is pretty close.

The other thing I find interesting is how the immune system may be linked to mating patterns -- which makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective.

I think rather than a makers mark, password, or signature I'd prefer to think of these various protein complexes in analogue to the markings -- which also can mark all sorts of functions within a community. Mostly because the former suggests a singular hand, an "I" marking something, when in fact there is a wider system in which self/other makes sense (to annihilate or not-annihilate the cell)

Further, there's a deeper link to other life evident in the biochemistry. It gives another physical basis for making the argument that humans are connected to the world about them, rather than a thinking thing directing their body from above.

At least these are the sorts of thoughts I have going on -- I could be missing your point entirely too.

Anyways, the world is indivisible so biology, psychology, sociology, have to create divisions with labels and talk, otherwise everything is mush. 'I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together.' — unenlightened

True. Or infinitely divisible and so incomprehensible, which amounts to the same. Everything is mush and so we create divisions in the mush to bring order to the world.

I think rather than a makers mark, password, or signature I'd prefer to think of these various protein complexes in analogue to the markings -- which also can mark all sorts of functions within a community. Mostly because the former suggests a singular hand, an "I" marking something, when in fact there is a wider system in which self/other makes sense (to annihilate or not-annihilate the cell) — Moliere

Hmm. I'm struggling to understand this. Tribal markings arise in the wider system of tribes; cell markings arise in the wider system of multi cellular organisms; makers marks arise in the larger system of the marketplace.

Going back to an earlier thread, marking is the act of making a distinction.

Hmm. I'm struggling to understand this. Tribal markings arise in the wider system of tribes; cell markings arise in the wider system of multi cellular organisms; makers marks arise in the larger system of the marketplace. — unenlightened

True.

It could just be a professional hazard of the cobbler seeing the world as a big shoe. The system of signs can be seen as an assemblage, too.

An attempt to make a distinction though: A maker's mark and a tribal marking, so it seems to me at least, indicates an actor with intent. This is our company's mark. This is your position in the tribe. Act accordingly! (indicating a "you" to whom the command is addressed -- a sort of responsibility)

Intent is much less obvious at the level of the multicellular organism, though -- the self made of millions of cells interacting in various capacities continues even as the cells that once were a healthy part of the organism become other from the organism from degradation or infection. There isn't an intent so much as a mechanism composing parts connected to parts and the distinctions are each of them a miniature sorites paradox resolved by what's of interest.

When the two organisms became 1 it made me think: here there's no intent, and it's really only the functions and capacities within an environment which is marking the difference between self/other (as the two others become one self due to environmental pressures).

Going back to an earlier thread, marking is the act of making a distinction. — unenlightened

There's something about life that feels different from the relays -- the whole "entering into itself" thing at the end that feels a bit mysterious feels analogous to the question of differentiating species, or even differentiating life from not-life. They are clearly differentiable when they are, and not when they are not (the virus providing a good mid-point between the two -- certainly life, but almost mechanical in its piggybacking on life). But rather than the logical system of marks it's a slapdash and messy process that looks designed at times, but clearly isn't. It's us who find the patterns in life because we like to see the patterns -- we want to know how this whole messy thing began.

But unlike the system of logic there's an entire environment which surrounds and even composes the multicellular organism, and the self -- though we hold it responsible -- is this assemblage of parts feeding into a great multiplicity of functions far beyond intent.

If mating patterns -- that natural chemistry people want -- is the result of compatible immune systems then the self will intend what the functions demand. Or, intent is a post hoc explanation of the assemblage.

EDIT: Though, as always, after I write something and give myself some time to rethink I see little bumps in the thinking I dislike: the tribal markings were supposed to function the same and here I started to think how intent would make them different, and now I'm thinking "intent" need not come in at all in any assemblage. Heh -- the curse of wondering is exactly this back-and-forth...

Heh -- the curse of wondering is exactly this back-and-forth... — Moliere

This back-and-forth can contribute to 'triangulating' and closing in on a more accurate understanding.

The blessing of wondering. :razz:

It can, but usually it just irritates others :D

True.

That's probably why I call it a curse -- I enjoy the reflection and the wondering, and I know it annoys others and so try not to do it when it does so.

Outside my comfort zone by several parsecs, so talk amongst yourselves; probably you have to be a friend of a friend of Wigner's mother at least to relate to this stuff. but here it is is from the mouths of several veritable friends of Wigner's horses. So, respect!