Pharyngula

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Saturday, June 11, 2005

Within You Without You

We were talking
about the space between us all…

Cosma Shalizi:

One reason papers like this gladden my heart is my basic intellectual cowardice: the sheer endless proliferating detail of biology overwhelms me, especially when something drives home the fact that we keep finding utterly new stuff everywhere we look. Here we are, looking at our own guts, and coming up with stuff like this: "Three sequences from two subjects ... appear to represent a novel lineage, deeply branching from the Cyanobacteria phylum and chloroplast sequences." See? There are organisms whose closest relatives are the stuff that turns ponds and leaves green living inside us, and until now we had no idea. And when we eventually look inside them, they're going to turn out to be weirdly complicated and uniquely strange, exactly like everything else. And of course the damn things will have histories, again exactly like everything else. Biology just doesn't stop, and at some point the details and special cases make me wish my head would explode.

William Tozier:

See, not only are all those new organisms everywhere, and not only (as Cosma points out) do they have histories, but they form an ecology or a society or a something-or-other-that-is-organized. They engage in a combinatorially intractable number of interactions with one another, and the nature and frequency of those interactions will change over time, and so it depends on what you had for fucking dinner what they “say” (chemically) to one another. And for that matter what they “say” (chemically) to one another and to you probably helped direct what you had for dinner. Plus there’s the ones on your skin, in the air you breathe, in the other tissues throughout your body, on your food… everywhere you think you can draw a boundary around “you”, it is crossed by some organism that you missed. And vice versa.

Heck, don't stop there. It's not just that there is an inextricable relationship between diverse gut flora and us, but that our concept of "us" is too limited. Not only does pond scum live within and upon us, but we are pond scum that got its act together and joined together under the most intricate and demanding neighborhood association contract ever. Yeah, it's odd to contemplate ourselves as a residence for cyanobacteria…but what about those guts themselves? Slithery slimy tubes oozing enzymes and slurping up sludgy goo from their lumens—is that me? Why should I feel more astonished at their contents than at the astounding weirdness of all of my constituent parts? Alga aren't any stranger than goblet cells or erythrocytes or pyramidal neurons.

I think Cosma's right that the intimidating thing is that it doesn't end. We have this illusion that we are discrete and bounded, but we're really just temporary skeins of sensations and chemicals that enwrap some complicated chemistry, and interact with everything around us. "I" am something that changes with the length of the day, the bits of organisms that I'm constantly stuffing into the anterior end of my digestive tract, the viruses that sneak in and diddle my chemistry, the scents of the people around me. The universe is one big stewpot, and we just happen to be somewhat lumpier bits…but we're still thoroughly infiltrated with the broth, and we're mistaken if we think we're somehow independent of the stew.


Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2406/HYeVvrrq/

Comments:
#28040: — 06/11  at  08:42 AM
This seems to sum up why creatonist types hang on to their beliefs. It just makes everything so tidy. And we all like to stop worrying about things, don“t we? So "God did it", is just good housekeeping. See also : Muslims are Evil, gays are Evil, black people are dangerous, communists, atheists etc etc etc etc......



#28041: Bill Tozier — 06/11  at  08:51 AM
Oi! That last bit you proffer? Would that be a whole lot different from the bit that I wrote just after the extracted quote?

wink

No, seriously, we're both right no matter which of us said it first [which is somehow ironic and deep, or maybe entirely to be expected, in this context]: this problem of individuation is the most important aspect of biological science, as well as several other sciences, and a bunch of stuff that wants to be science.

We (speaking now as a biologist) have diddled around a bit with the species concept and the organism concept, and ecologists have occasionally stuck their noses into the question of what exactly is meant by "community," and structural biochemists who know a bit of statistical mechanics seem to grasp in a primitive way what is really meant when they mention the "folded state" of a macromolecule... but so damned few of us have integrated those intuitions into our daily work, or tried to generalize them and examine the consequences. I still remember telling the kids in my biochemistry recitations about how almost everything they were made to memorize, down to the tables of enthalpies and reaction times, was based on in vitro experiments and therefore would probably be totally wrong in real life -- because cells are not pure solutions of reactants, but dense gels of all kinds of unknown crap and structured water and porous to adjacent cells and interstitial gunk and... well, that everything in the real world is different from what they were memorizing. Though they had to memorize it, anyway, to get into medical school. :/

It's really cool that stuff isn't what we think it is. Ever. But I get the feeling that a lot of our colleagues (your current, my ex-) are not comforted by that thought.

Until the science really incorporates and integrates a vastly different but more reasonable view of fundamental philosophical terms like type, class, model, organism, and even events that we talk about all the time... well, I don't think the going will be easy. My own inclination is that the very squishy concepts we're poking at here need to be formalized a lot more, so that we can agree about what it is we're talking about when we say "you" or "dinosaurs" or "function" in a given situation.

That may sound pretty academic... but maybe not. The stuff is happening out there in the real world, whether we have the right words to get our little heads around it or not.



#28042: Bill Tozier — 06/11  at  08:54 AM
Steve's point resonates, though I can't put my finger on exactly why: There is something to religious dogma, and for that matter typical run-of-the-mill thoughtless human life, that mistakes the world for the words that describe it.

Though when I write that, it sounds like mystical clap-trap, too. Which is worrisome.



#28046: coturnix — 06/11  at  10:26 AM
Isn't there a push for "Human Genome Project II" to sequence the genomes of all the organisms that live inside of us in order to complete the genome of the Whole And Complete Human?



#28051: Bill Tozier — 06/11  at  11:27 AM
And when they have sequenced the genomes of those other organisms, that's about the point where we undertake the Human Genomic Variability Project (set to sequence the variations in the genomes of people not 100% genetically identical to the canonical person, and then we'll have to sequence the genomes of the variations of the other species we've done, and then we'll consider the variations in the expression levels and conformations of proteins encoded in those genomes, and then somebody will point out that the best way to learn how all this stuff is put together is to make new stuff that acts the same way.

At some point, one should begin to suspect that the first successful Whole and Complete Human Project will be the one that first succeeds in making a whole and complete human. From scratch -- not from that boring old standard recipe....



#28053: coturnix — 06/11  at  12:11 PM
Hey, I LIKE "that boring old standard recipe" wink and have two great kids to show for it!



#28054: — 06/11  at  12:15 PM
Lalalalala! Don't wanna hear it! Hands on ears, quotes Yoda: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."

Then again, Yoda seemed to be covered with green algae.

Reminds me of the major plot hole from the Cronenberg version of "The Fly." That is, only the human and fly DNA were spliced; apparenly, the genomes of all the other stowaways on Jeff Goldblum's person (and the fly, too) were ignored. Or not -- which would explain why his telepod couldn't work (except that this was never mentioned).



#28056: — 06/11  at  12:54 PM
From Bill tozier:
"Until the science really incorporates and integrates a vastly different but more reasonable view of fundamental philosophical terms like type, class, model, organism, and even events that we talk about all the time... well, I don't think the going will be easy. My own inclination is that the very squishy concepts we're poking at here need to be formalized a lot more, so that we can agree about what it is we're talking about when we say "you" or "dinosaurs" or "function" in a given situation."

So, if I understand you correctly, you are talking about the difficulties of communication science and scientific advances to people? Following that line of thought, I have some thoughts of my own to offer.....

Reasonably from what viewpoint? In describing wht is going on? Are you going to have to make up new words? But then remember that things about chaos and feedback loops are almost in everyday use now, even if most people dont know the maths behind them.
As for formalisation, well, at the moment it is rather context and knowledge dependent, and I cant see an easy way of getting away from that. I think various people have been babling on about the whole everythign related to everything else in really complex interacting systems etc for a decade or two, so is there a whole field called something like "biological systematics" which would attempt to put the molecular evidence together into long sequences of description? I can imagine a complex HTML interactive kind of resource, in which you could follow the fate of a glucose molecule as it is digested and then used in your body. Or see the various ways in which chemicals produced in the Thalamus affect mood and suchlike, and then after you get an inkling of all that, you might be more forgiving to your grumpy colleauge who is touchy first thing in the morning, because their cells respond a little differently to yours.



#28073: — 06/11  at  03:14 PM
Somehow, Grumpy, The E.coli ("Be afraid. Be very afraid.") just doesn't have the same ring to it....

And as for a human suddenly developing chloroplasts as a result of a teleportation error... just not very threatening.



#28076: decrepitoldfool — 06/11  at  03:45 PM
We have this illusion that we are discrete and bounded, but we're really just temporary skeins of sensations and chemicals ... and we're mistaken if we think we're somehow independent of the stew.


Funny, you don't look Buddhist... wink



#28081: — 06/11  at  06:10 PM
Depends which end of the telescope you look through, I guess.

I read Wallace Arthur's 'Biased Embryos and Evolution' (a plea for an organismic approach) last week, and he happened to comment that a gut is external to the creature that assembles it. (Easier to grasp if you think about a sea cucumber, maybe.)

So from that point of view, these critters are not inside us after all.

Professor Myers appears to be, again, muddying the boundary or definition of individual.

I was well smacked down here on that topic previously. Curiously, Professor Arthur seems to pretty much derive his concept of organism (in Chapter 2) almost identically to the way I did (in the stem cell talk), though I am NOT suggesting he comes to the same conclusions about stem cells (to take a f'rinstance) as I did.

But I am thoroughly puzzled by the notion that our interactions, even very intimate ones, with apparently separate organisms are being taken as evidence of a lack of individual boundaries. I'm the same guy before and after I trim my fingernails.



#28084: decrepitoldfool — 06/11  at  07:49 PM
a gut is external to the creature that assembles it.


Topologically speaking, I guess, an organism is a coffee cup, and the gut is the hole through the handle (and if you want to get even sillier, the lungs are the 'inside' of the cup.) But functionally sphincters close the handle at several points. And discreet processing operations take place between sphincters.

I'm not the same guy before and after I read the morning paper. Or eat my cereal. And certainly not before and after I drink my coffee! tongue laugh



's avatar #28086: PZ Myers — 06/11  at  07:57 PM
We could also push it further, and say that the lumens of all the glands that open into the gut are also 'outside', as are the ducts of the excretory system and all the bits and pieces of the reproductive tract. We're all like sandwiches, with a a mesoderm and neurectoderm filling.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris



#28093: — 06/11  at  08:55 PM
What a great subject.

Bill Tozier, I snipped a clause from one of your sentences to more succinctly state: "There is something to religious dogma ... that mistakes the world for the words that describe it."

That is a spectacularly insightful comment about human behavior. And interestingly, this is exactly the same "something" to Intelligent Design; philosophical polemic taking the place of scientific observation and continual discovery. (If anyone needed yet any more indication that ID and Creationism are one and the same.)



#28110: — 06/12  at  01:10 AM
Sure, we're "dense gels of all kinds of unknown crap and structured water", just like every other sort of animal, but the doves startle and scatter from me when I fill the bird feeders. They recognize me as Other and fear perhaps that I will eat them, an act which would bring us closer, in a sense, but which they instinctively avoid.



#28131: Bill Tozier — 06/12  at  08:46 AM
Don wrote:

Bill Tozier, I snipped a clause from one of your sentences to more succinctly state: "There is something to religious dogma ... that mistakes the world for the words that describe it."


While flattered, I have to say that the clause you snipped is especially salient.

Are you intentionally reaching for that extra meta-irony, or what?

;)



#28146: — 06/12  at  10:31 AM
Wonderful stuff, this squiggly wiggly undefinable line that defines the self. The word is indeed not the thing. We of course must draw lines, but we need to keep in mind that they are always oversimplified. As has been pointed out, this is where religion often fails. Awe and humility are rather in order in the face of the unimaginable complexity of life.



#28169: Rana — 06/12  at  01:02 PM
I love things like this.

And it doesn't just stop with organismal boundries. Right now the molecules atoms and the like that make up my fingers are overlapping with the ones that make up the air and the keyboard of my computer. ;)


Oh, how appropriate. The word-to-comment is "love."



#28199: jack* — 06/12  at  04:00 PM
Our words attempt to "cleave nature at the joints," but the joints we perceive are simply not there. The best ontology is statistical.

Religious dogma requires an rigid, black or white epistomology. Moral absolutism is impossible if there can be shades of grey in being, let alone meaning. One only has to examine the central biological issue of abortion argument (when does human life begin?) to see that the fluid, ever changing, interrelated natural world is antithetical to a concept of a God-given divine order.

As for the language to describe this worldview -- we already have it. The language is Science. Those that see the world as if our everyday categorizations describe intrinsic natural divisions are actually practicing the crudest form of reductionism. When science finds an organizing principle that seems to bind together diverse and complex phenomen, like evolution, we celebrate it. Not because we want to force reality to follow laws of our making, but because we see the hope of actually understanding something important about a deeply and awesomely complex universe.



#28208: — 06/12  at  07:30 PM
Too Buddhist for me.

If natural selection acts on individuals to change populations, there ought to be individuals, no?

I don't go anywhere without my eyebrow mites, but that doesn't make me part mite, nor make a mite a man.

I don't think, anyway.



#28260: — 06/13  at  08:20 AM
Bravo - biological acumen and curmudgeonly materialism and good writing - this site is great.



#34164: — 08/07  at  12:13 PM
Finding this site quite by accident I will take a moment to toss a thought or two into your stew. Whenever I encounter a conviction of absolute certainty, regardless of the position, I stop and ponder some distant future and wonder where evolution will take such self inflicted genius. What more can possibly be understood when all is now known. I suspect that the day will come when we are viewed by our descendants much the same way we look back at Australopithecus. By then the questions of "what" and "how", which we are so concerned with today, will have been long answered. And perhaps, with some future insight which we cannot begin to comprehend, the mysterious beauty of the remaining question of the "why" behind the "what" and "how" will be obvious. Until then, we can either recognize our cognitive limitations and accept on faith that there must be an answer to why or simply proclaim some omnipotent genius and conceitfully refuse to ask it on the grounds that we already know it all. In evolutionary terms it should be obvious which position is "most fit", unfortunately the other appears "fit enough".



Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: Well, maybe another catch is if getting up close and personal with flies makes you squeamish&hellip

Previous entry: Not a kangaroo or a raccoon among them

<< Back to main

Info

email PZ Myers
Search
Archives
UMM—America's best public liberal arts college