Before some so-called Events intervened, @MCHammer and I had agreed to talk about 1. the nature of consciousness and 2. the value of thinking. (I will later put up a thread about planaria, the beautiful animals that started off the conversation!)

@radekvana argues here that new discoveries about the two-way relationship between microorganisms and brain function should change the way we think about organisms and consciousness.

https://t.co/ZFU8eXDwxH
(Caveat: I am not a biologist or a philosopher of mind, so I welcome more expert interventions in the thread.) But here is how I see it. It is amazing to think that whole organisms (bacteria) may be a crucial part of human cognition and perception.
The difficulty I see with the piece is that its challenges to the notion of organism (early in the piece, where he argues that we are holobionts) don't seem to work. The mystery of consciousness-- and life-- is not just reactivity and flexibility.
There is a *unity* to my consciousness, just as there is a unity to my life. On the latter: when I lose consciousness, or die, do my gut bacteria change? Not necessarily, I'd guess. Nor am I persuaded that a single organism's life or death is a "spectrum".
One may be alive without being fully conscious, and while lacking certain functions, but that does not change the fact that death is a single event. Likewise, my full consciousness belongs to that same body, that same person, whose consciousness was once limited. *I* wake up.
To me the great gift of Aristotle's philosophy is the difference between on the one hand, parts, material conditions, and tools of living things (matter); and the whole being that governs the use of those things on the other (form).
A certain friend (who may reveal herself) sliced her Achilles tendon as a child. A nearby muscle moved in and took over the Achilles function! It is events like these that are the wonder of biology.
These cases show us that material parts are not autonomous. They are subordinate to large-scale functioning. So, for human consciousness: While I find it exciting and delightful to learn that its material conditions involve much more than the brain...
(and it makes me wonder about the way a body perceives) ...the real question for me is: Where does the unity come from?? How is it that *I* feel my stomach grumble, pain in my finger, and anger when I don't get what I want?
The article describes consciousness as flexibility in responding to problems. But what is a problem? A problem for a part could be a benefit for a whole; the problem for a whole could be a benefit for a part.
The notion of problem assumes the existence of a being with a good, that flourishes or suffers. So consciousness is bound to the unity of an organism, of a living thing with an autonomous good. Without an account of that unity, we haven't gotten what we were looking for.
Hope that's enough to start the conversation! Delighted to talk about the deep stuff with people of all walks of life. That's what it's all about, in my book!

More from Life

"I lied about my basic beliefs in order to keep a prestigious job. Now that it will be zero-cost to me, I have a few things to say."


We know that elite institutions like the one Flier was in (partial) charge of rely on irrelevant status markers like private school education, whiteness, legacy, and ability to charm an old white guy at an interview.

Harvard's discriminatory policies are becoming increasingly well known, across the political spectrum (see, e.g., the recent lawsuit on discrimination against East Asian applications.)

It's refreshing to hear a senior administrator admits to personally opposing policies that attempt to remedy these basic flaws. These are flaws that harm his institution's ability to do cutting-edge research and to serve the public.

Harvard is being eclipsed by institutions that have different ideas about how to run a 21st Century institution. Stanford, for one; the UC system; the "public Ivys".

You May Also Like

The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.