- Joined
- Sep 1, 2023
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 2,094
- Awards
- 17
There are lots of ways of looking at this question, but this is the logic path based on my existing (scientific) knowledge and models of the world, and it might fit your brain too
We are ALREADY made up of separate entities. The most obvious is the microbiome. There's tiny rhinoceros-looking bacteria that live on our eyelashes, and apparently mitochondria used to be a symbiotic species but are now intrinsically part of us?
A lot of neuroscientists see different parts of the brain as competing with each other for resources and physical space within the skull. "Neurons that fire together wire together" obviously, but it may go further, and that they're kind of engaged in their own survival of the fittest battle at that level. There's a compelling theory that dreams are a way for the visual cortex to stake out its territory overnight. Shutting down for 8 hours would let other regions of the brain muscle in on its territory, so it's found a way to periodically activate throughout sleep.
IFS therapy treats you as having different "parts" with a coordinating Self (hopefully) in charge. (Poor mental health comes from when one of your parts - say, anxiety - takes control of the wheel and starts doing a bunch of things that aren't in its job description). And IFS is very effective, though I'm still not totally sure to what extent it's a metaphor.
There's also the idea of "extended cognition" or "embodied cognition" - the idea that part of our brain is effectively in the tools we use, and again that the boundary between self and other, inside and outside, is not as sharp as it looks.
Sticking to the more robust microbiome example: there is a separate entity that is assigned to us and us alone, that we do not share with others, even if ours might have a lot in common with others'. We cannot access its thoughts. It has its own agenda while nevertheless being deeply invested in our wellbeing.
And we don't have a problem thinking of it as part of us. We understand that the human body is an ecosystem, but we still identify our "self" as the organising principle, and we don't agonise over whether our bacteria are separate or not
So if the HGA is a separate entity, but it's assigned to us and us alone, then that's not actually that different from being a part of the self, because we're ALREADY not an isolated entity, we're already a conglomerate or ecosystem.
I think the question then can only be: is the HGA part of us, or is it a separate entity AND part of us.
The conception of the self as having clear hard boundaries is kind of a pre-20th century thing.
We are ALREADY made up of separate entities. The most obvious is the microbiome. There's tiny rhinoceros-looking bacteria that live on our eyelashes, and apparently mitochondria used to be a symbiotic species but are now intrinsically part of us?
A lot of neuroscientists see different parts of the brain as competing with each other for resources and physical space within the skull. "Neurons that fire together wire together" obviously, but it may go further, and that they're kind of engaged in their own survival of the fittest battle at that level. There's a compelling theory that dreams are a way for the visual cortex to stake out its territory overnight. Shutting down for 8 hours would let other regions of the brain muscle in on its territory, so it's found a way to periodically activate throughout sleep.
IFS therapy treats you as having different "parts" with a coordinating Self (hopefully) in charge. (Poor mental health comes from when one of your parts - say, anxiety - takes control of the wheel and starts doing a bunch of things that aren't in its job description). And IFS is very effective, though I'm still not totally sure to what extent it's a metaphor.
There's also the idea of "extended cognition" or "embodied cognition" - the idea that part of our brain is effectively in the tools we use, and again that the boundary between self and other, inside and outside, is not as sharp as it looks.
Sticking to the more robust microbiome example: there is a separate entity that is assigned to us and us alone, that we do not share with others, even if ours might have a lot in common with others'. We cannot access its thoughts. It has its own agenda while nevertheless being deeply invested in our wellbeing.
And we don't have a problem thinking of it as part of us. We understand that the human body is an ecosystem, but we still identify our "self" as the organising principle, and we don't agonise over whether our bacteria are separate or not
So if the HGA is a separate entity, but it's assigned to us and us alone, then that's not actually that different from being a part of the self, because we're ALREADY not an isolated entity, we're already a conglomerate or ecosystem.
I think the question then can only be: is the HGA part of us, or is it a separate entity AND part of us.
The conception of the self as having clear hard boundaries is kind of a pre-20th century thing.