White blood cell chasing bacteria

[JustinG]

How many alters can your see?



BK's view: viewtopic.php?p=2082#p2082

Why would bacterial cells in the body be alters, but other cells, such as blood cells circulating freely in the blood, not be alters?

The answer seems obvious to me: the cells of our own organism share DNA and operate as part of a unified metabolic whole, while the bacteria in e.g. our gut operate as standalone organisms, focusing on their own survival, not the survival of a larger whole. They so happen to be useful to us, but they are focused on their own survival. They are cells because their subjectivity is so simple that the representation of this subjectivity on the screen of perception does not span beyond a single pixel. Moreover, we know what happens when our own cells become dissociated from us and turn into alters of their own: we call it cancer.

[Lou Gold]

How many alters can your see?



BK's view: viewtopic.php?p=2082#p2082

Why would bacterial cells in the body be alters, but other cells, such as blood cells circulating freely in the blood, not be alters?

The answer seems obvious to me: the cells of our own organism share DNA and operate as part of a unified metabolic whole, while the bacteria in e.g. our gut operate as standalone organisms, focusing on their own survival, not the survival of a larger whole. They so happen to be useful to us, but they are focused on their own survival. They are cells because their subjectivity is so simple that the representation of this subjectivity on the screen of perception does not span beyond a single pixel. Moreover, we know what happens when our own cells become dissociated from us and turn into alters of their own: we call it cancer.

And the presence of cancer cells in the system is quite normal. The disorder called "cancer" is a systemic state where the cancer cells have exceeded or overwhelmed systemic checks-and-balances. Extending farther outward, this imbalance may be the result of environmental influences. It seems to me that the problem occurs whenever the individual agency of an alter is emphasized over its embeddedness in a greater network of relationship. Mitakuye Oyasin. Bottom line: networked embeddedness is more fundamental than individual sovereignty.

[SanteriSatama]

I agree that BK's DNA argument is not his strongest argument.

[JustinG]

Yeah, I think some of the biological aspects of BK's theory could do with refinement. He is great when it comes to analytic philosophy, physics and neuroscience. But for other areas of biology, not so much. It seems reasonable to infer subjectivity to bacteria based on the appearance of purposeful, intentional behaviour. Not to do the same for white blood cells seeems a bit like postulating planetary epicycles to preserve Ptolemaic astronomy.

He has challenged people like Daniel Dennett to debates. If such challenges are accepted, these are the type of things they would probably aim to hone in on.

[AshvinP]

Yeah, I think some of the biological aspects of BK's theory could do with refinement. He is great when it comes to analytic philosophy, physics and neuroscience. But for other areas of biology, not so much. It seems reasonable to infer subjectivity to bacteria based on the appearance of purposeful, intentional behaviour. Not to do the same for white blood cells seeems a bit like postulating planetary epicycles to preserve Ptolemaic astronomy.

He has challenged people like Daniel Dennett to debates. If such challenges are accepted, these are the type of things they would probably aim to hone in on.

I don't get what the argument is here. Because the white blood cells look like they are behaving purposefully during immune response they must be phenomenally conscious alters just like bacteria cells and all other living organisms? Maybe, or maybe not. I don't think it can be established one way or another.

And I also don't get why it would be important in a debate. It seems to me like these distinctions are missing the major aim of idealist metaphysics, which is to provide a coherent and rigorous foundation from which we can reunite the hard division between mentality and physicality, i.e. between inner life and exterior surface. BK would simply need to point that out as he usually does.

[JustinG]

Yeah, I think some of the biological aspects of BK's theory could do with refinement. He is great when it comes to analytic philosophy, physics and neuroscience. But for other areas of biology, not so much. It seems reasonable to infer subjectivity to bacteria based on the appearance of purposeful, intentional behaviour. Not to do the same for white blood cells seeems a bit like postulating planetary epicycles to preserve Ptolemaic astronomy.

He has challenged people like Daniel Dennett to debates. If such challenges are accepted, these are the type of things they would probably aim to hone in on.

I don't get what the argument is here. Because the white blood cells look like they are behaving purposefully during immune response they must be phenomenally conscious alters just like bacteria cells and all other living organisms? Maybe, or maybe not. I don't think it can be established one way or another.

And I also don't get why it would be important in a debate. It seems to me like these distinctions are missing the major aim of idealist metaphysics, which is to provide a coherent and rigorous foundation from which we can reunite the hard division between mentality and physicality, i.e. between inner life and exterior surface. BK would simply need to point that out as he usually does.

I don't think anything of absolute importance hangs off the issue. But BK using the 'metabolizing organism' as the most basic form of subject is how he avoids the combination problem. If BK's model allowed that all the cells in the body are alters, then the door could be opened to question why his model should be preferred to a model like that of Itay Shani, in which even elementary particles are subjects (as well as MAL). BK discusses Shani's model and his preference for the organism as the level at which dissociation occurs in page 134-146 of this paper: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contento ... /art00006#

Also, characterising organisms as more like ecosystems than unitary subjects has implications for how things like emodiment and being human are conceptualised.

[SanteriSatama]

Also, characterising organisms as more like ecosystems than unitary subjects has implications for how things like emodiment and being human are conceptualised.

Ecosystems sounds good. For structure of unitary subjects BK has suggested mathematical possession by Markov Blankets.

[Simon Adams]

I also think you have to have something at the level of the cell. For it to work each cell needs some kind of sub-telos, as the alternative is the subconscious is in some ways co-ordinating the cells in the body, which doesn’t seem right from an idealism or biology perspective. What are the autonomous functions in idealism? I can think of multiple thoughts at the same time, but this is not like that.

There is then the sense in which the whole is brought together as one body under the ‘soul’, like an army with a general, a hunting pack with an alpha, an orchestra with a conductor etc. The soul is the higher level unity, but the heart is not aware of the same things the kidney is etc, all the way down the hierarchy.

In fact if you look inside the cell, you have something similar. The cell walls actively control access, the mitochondria produces the right right amount of energy consistently, the proteins move about to get to where they’re needed. This too is like parts with their own sub telos.

With cancel of course the problem is that the cells forget about sacrifice, their sub-telos is stuck on survival, and aligned to the telos of the wider body.

[AshvinP]

Yeah, I think some of the biological aspects of BK's theory could do with refinement. He is great when it comes to analytic philosophy, physics and neuroscience. But for other areas of biology, not so much. It seems reasonable to infer subjectivity to bacteria based on the appearance of purposeful, intentional behaviour. Not to do the same for white blood cells seeems a bit like postulating planetary epicycles to preserve Ptolemaic astronomy.

He has challenged people like Daniel Dennett to debates. If such challenges are accepted, these are the type of things they would probably aim to hone in on.

I don't get what the argument is here. Because the white blood cells look like they are behaving purposefully during immune response they must be phenomenally conscious alters just like bacteria cells and all other living organisms? Maybe, or maybe not. I don't think it can be established one way or another.

And I also don't get why it would be important in a debate. It seems to me like these distinctions are missing the major aim of idealist metaphysics, which is to provide a coherent and rigorous foundation from which we can reunite the hard division between mentality and physicality, i.e. between inner life and exterior surface. BK would simply need to point that out as he usually does.

I don't think anything of absolute importance hangs off the issue. But BK using the 'metabolizing organism' as the most basic form of subject is how he avoids the combination problem. If BK's model allowed that all the cells in the body are alters, then the door could be opened to question why his model should be preferred to a model like that of Itay Shani, in which even elementary particles are subjects (as well as MAL). BK discusses Shani's model and his preference for the organism as the level at which dissociation occurs in page 134-146 of this paper: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contento ... /art00006#

Also, characterising organisms as more like ecosystems than unitary subjects has implications for how things like embodiment and being human are conceptualised.

I am currently of the opinion that the subject combo problem is mostly an artificial consequence of the Cartesian mind-matter and/or flawed Kantian epistemic divide. I had some reasons for that speculation but have forgotten them, so will circle back on that later.

[SanteriSatama]

I also think you have to have something at the level of the cell. For it to work each cell needs some kind of sub-telos, as the alternative is the subconscious is in some ways co-ordinating the cells in the body, which doesn’t seem right from an idealism or biology perspective. What are the autonomous functions in idealism? I can think of multiple thoughts at the same time, but this is not like that.

There is then the sense in which the whole is brought together as one body under the ‘soul’, like an army with a general, a hunting pack with an alpha, an orchestra with a conductor etc. The soul is the higher level unity, but the heart is not aware of the same things the kidney is etc, all the way down the hierarchy.

In fact if you look inside the cell, you have something similar. The cell walls actively control access, the mitochondria produces the right right amount of energy consistently, the proteins move about to get to where they’re needed. This too is like parts with their own sub telos.

With cancel of course the problem is that the cells forget about sacrifice, their sub-telos is stuck on survival, and aligned to the telos of the wider body.

Cancer happens when the sub-telos doesn’t switch to

Well said. Also endogastric bacteria, etc members of an organism which don't share same exact DNA, can function in symbiotic harmony with an organic whole, as well as manifest various levels of disagreement and autonomy.