This is becoming my Sunday night read in bed. Particularly gelled with clonal expansion and motivation psychology. Two thoughts I had - do you think the immune system would recognise something entirely alien (ie non Earth-biological)? Or does clonal expansion (and extensions of that thinking beyond biology) require an infinite panel against a known pattern of information (peptides/sugars/other biomolecules)? In which case maybe that layer needs to be added to that style of thinking - diversity and variation within a fixed field of possibility.
Motivation psychology was interesting. I tend to motivate with negative rewards and hadn't really thought about it before. Maybe time for a change!
I'm glad to read that, I’m happy it’s not only adding value for me!
On your question, honestly, I have no idea.
But rather than shut down an interesting discussion, here are the variables that I think could meaningfully affect the answer:
- If the basic chemistry of extraterrestrial organisms is carbon-based, the odds already seem higher than if it’s based on something else (silicon, etc.).
- Are the minimal biological units anything like what we know (in particular: internal architecture, membranes, organelles, etc.)?
- And maybe most decisively (as you pointed out): what kinds of surface markers do these organisms present? If those markers are even remotely close to familiar classes of molecules (lipids, peptides, etc.), then it doesn’t strike me as impossible.
In a context this uncertain, I like to fall back on a Bayesian framing: assuming life has a broadly similar structure (cells, surface markers, etc.), how likely is it that the terrestrial immune repertoire contains a “library” broad enough to cope with all the theoretically possible diversity of “attacking” organisms? It feels hard to be absolute in saying “yes, it can handle all of it.” But it also feels hard to be absolute the other way and say “it couldn’t recognize any of it.”
But again, I might be talking nonsense, it’s possible that the emergence of life is relatively standardized and constrained, even off Earth, in a way that would make the answer “yes, it could recognize all of it” more plausible. (Still, I wouldn’t bet on that.)
You probably have more insights than I do to contribute on this question, and I’m very curious to read them.
On negative reward: I remember reading a study strongly suggesting that certain reward-preference profiles tend to correlate with particular psychological traits. And since I’m personally more responsive to negative reinforcement, I remember that one of the traits most associated with that profile was anxiety.
The breadth and depth of this series are truly remarkable. It’s rare to find a resource that doesn't just list mental models, but meticulously explains how to synthesize disparate concepts from physics, biology, and social sciences into a cohesive framework for real-life decision-making. I reserve this series for slow, deliberate reading.
Seeing how these models translate into sharper investing insights is a masterclass in 'latticework' thinking. Your series is becoming an essential curriculum for anyone serious about compounding their intellectual capital. Brilliant work!
This is becoming my Sunday night read in bed. Particularly gelled with clonal expansion and motivation psychology. Two thoughts I had - do you think the immune system would recognise something entirely alien (ie non Earth-biological)? Or does clonal expansion (and extensions of that thinking beyond biology) require an infinite panel against a known pattern of information (peptides/sugars/other biomolecules)? In which case maybe that layer needs to be added to that style of thinking - diversity and variation within a fixed field of possibility.
Motivation psychology was interesting. I tend to motivate with negative rewards and hadn't really thought about it before. Maybe time for a change!
I'm glad to read that, I’m happy it’s not only adding value for me!
On your question, honestly, I have no idea.
But rather than shut down an interesting discussion, here are the variables that I think could meaningfully affect the answer:
- If the basic chemistry of extraterrestrial organisms is carbon-based, the odds already seem higher than if it’s based on something else (silicon, etc.).
- Are the minimal biological units anything like what we know (in particular: internal architecture, membranes, organelles, etc.)?
- And maybe most decisively (as you pointed out): what kinds of surface markers do these organisms present? If those markers are even remotely close to familiar classes of molecules (lipids, peptides, etc.), then it doesn’t strike me as impossible.
In a context this uncertain, I like to fall back on a Bayesian framing: assuming life has a broadly similar structure (cells, surface markers, etc.), how likely is it that the terrestrial immune repertoire contains a “library” broad enough to cope with all the theoretically possible diversity of “attacking” organisms? It feels hard to be absolute in saying “yes, it can handle all of it.” But it also feels hard to be absolute the other way and say “it couldn’t recognize any of it.”
But again, I might be talking nonsense, it’s possible that the emergence of life is relatively standardized and constrained, even off Earth, in a way that would make the answer “yes, it could recognize all of it” more plausible. (Still, I wouldn’t bet on that.)
You probably have more insights than I do to contribute on this question, and I’m very curious to read them.
On negative reward: I remember reading a study strongly suggesting that certain reward-preference profiles tend to correlate with particular psychological traits. And since I’m personally more responsive to negative reinforcement, I remember that one of the traits most associated with that profile was anxiety.
At least that lets me end on a positive note!
The breadth and depth of this series are truly remarkable. It’s rare to find a resource that doesn't just list mental models, but meticulously explains how to synthesize disparate concepts from physics, biology, and social sciences into a cohesive framework for real-life decision-making. I reserve this series for slow, deliberate reading.
Seeing how these models translate into sharper investing insights is a masterclass in 'latticework' thinking. Your series is becoming an essential curriculum for anyone serious about compounding their intellectual capital. Brilliant work!
Thank you, Elizabeth, really. Your words capture exactly what I’m trying to do with this series, and as a creator, I can’t think of a greater reward.