Watch and consider VII Do cells have consciousness

[pshun2404]

Watch and Consider VII

 

[tas8831]

One of Deepak's pals...

Neil Theise, M.D.

When he says that ions are 'carrying information', I have to close the window. Another crackpot looking to earn a few extra bucks.

 

[pshun2404]

One of Deepak's pals...

Neil Theise, M.D.

When he says that ions are 'carrying information', I have to close the window. Another crackpot looking to earn a few extra bucks.

Another well published scientist a crackpot because you disagree? Questionable at best! He also makes many fine points. Regardless of some speculation (which you are also guilty of in some areas...I am sure) do you think cells might have some level of conscious awareness?

DO they act as individuals interactive in their groups? Do they respond to their environments as external agents? Make choices? Favor one's that enhance their survival and avoid those that hinder it? And so on? Is awareness (which implicates consciousness) limited to only a brain and nervous system?

All this is irrelevant perhaps, but DO YOU think cells might have some level of conscious awareness?

 

[PsychoSarah]

-_- individual cells are not conscious. Their various reactions are via chemical triggers; they can't willfully make decisions. For example, it doesn't matter if a layer of toxin is thin enough for a bacteria to make it through without dying, nor does it matter if there is an abundance of nutrients on the other side of it. The bacteria will always flee from the toxin if it has the capacity to relocate, and it will flee in no particular direction aside from to a lower concentration of toxins.

 

[pshun2404]

-_- individual cells are not conscious. Their various reactions are via chemical triggers; they can't willfully make decisions. For example, it doesn't matter if a layer of toxin is thin enough for a bacteria to make it through without dying, nor does it matter if there is an abundance of nutrients on the other side of it. The bacteria will always flee from the toxin if it has the capacity to relocate, and it will flee in no particular direction aside from to a lower concentration of toxins.

_- individual cells are not conscious. Their various reactions are via chemical triggers; they can't willfully make decisions.

Thank you oh omniscient one...

Their various reactions are via chemical triggers; they can't willfully make decisions.

Chemical trigger are certainly detectable, but we cannot know if there is not some level of consciousness involved. They are alive why on earth would we assume they are not aware?

 

[pshun2404]

-_- individual cells are not conscious. Their various reactions are via chemical triggers; they can't willfully make decisions. For example, it doesn't matter if a layer of toxin is thin enough for a bacteria to make it through without dying, nor does it matter if there is an abundance of nutrients on the other side of it. The bacteria will always flee from the toxin if it has the capacity to relocate, and it will flee in no particular direction aside from to a lower concentration of toxins.

We did an experiment once with flat worms. We added drops of saline to one side. Naturally they swam away from the saline. But was this simply biochemical? I do not think so. We shined a light on one area of the pool and they swam to where there was more light and swam away from the dark. Was this simply a biochemical response or was this evidence of preference? Is that why we avoid the darkness and prefer the light? Perhaps! I think all living things have some level of awareness and thus consciousness but I am fine that you do not agree. This was after all looking for peoples opinion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Another well published scientist a crackpot because you disagree? Questionable at best! He also makes many fine points. Regardless of some speculation (which you are also guilty of in some areas...I am sure) do you think cells might have some level of conscious awareness?

DO they act as individuals interactive in their groups? Do they respond to their environments as external agents? Make choices? Favor one's that enhance their survival and avoid those that hinder it? And so on? Is awareness (which implicates consciousness) limited to only a brain and nervous system?

I think you need to properly define "awareness" and "consciousness".

All this is irrelevant perhaps, but DO YOU think cells might have some level of conscious awareness?

No.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Chemical trigger are certainly detectable, but we cannot know if there is not some level of consciousness involved. They are alive why on earth would we assume they are not aware?

You keep using these terms "awareness" and "consciousness" as if they are 1 and the same thing.

Are they?

Again, please define both because I am under the impression that people in this thread have different definitions in mind. You end up talking past eachother.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I think all living things have some level of awareness and thus consciousness but I am fine that you do not agree. This was after all looking for peoples opinion.

Do you really think that the answer to this question is no more or less then just a matter of "opinion"?

 

[pshun2404]

Do you really think that the answer to this question is no more or less then just a matter of "opinion"?

Only at this point in history!

However you are probably correct in your other post. Perhaps I need to define what I mean by consciousness and awareness. Maybe we mean different things.

Consciousness to me is a quality or state of being aware of one’s internal/external environment. Awareness being recognition of the difference between the two, i.e., a sensory realization or perception as in the sensing of a dangerous situation, etc., or being able to respond preferentially.

For example, Woodlice have been shown to demonstrate preference of one set of conditions over another and even awareness and avoidance of hazardous situations.

See, Using a Choice Chamber to investigate Animal Responses to Stimuli at

Using a choice chamber to investigate animal responses to stimuli | Nuffield Foundation

Daniel Chamovitz, Ph.D. (Genetics) says his research has indicated “A plant... can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/

But can this be explored via modern Neuro science? Of course not. Plants do not have brains or even what we would call nervous systems, but that does not change the possibility of them possessing a different quality of consciousness than our own, just one specifically suited for their needs.

This is not new, because the concept that all life is sentient actually goes back a few hundred years in theoretical science. But some scientists today are demonstrating the belief to have merit. Monica Gagliano for one example (Professor in Evolutionary Ecology and Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia), has done experiments that indicate that the mimosa pudica plant can learn from experience. Her work indicates plants are aware.

Remember when many people used to think fish do not feel? Is the struggle response merely mechanical response to a lack of oxygen or an attempt to get away and get back in the water? Do they know they are captured when they fight to resist?

If so, where is the line that separates living things that are aware, from living things that are only “automata” operating on pure biochemical reaction or chemically programmed instinct? Is there such a line?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Consciousness to me is a quality or state of being aware of one’s internal/external environment. Awareness being recognition of the difference between the two, i.e., a sensory realization or perception as in the sensing of a dangerous situation, etc., or being able to respond preferentially.

Under that definition, I'ld say that robots with motion- and light-sensors are both aware as well as conscious.

For example, Woodlice have been shown to demonstrate preference of one set of conditions over another and even awareness and avoidance of hazardous situations.

Is "instinctive behaviour" (like following light and thus moving away from darkness), under your definition, the same as having awareness/consiousness?

It sounds like it. I would disagree with that.

It seems to me that you are making NO distinction between behaviours that happen automatically / instinctively on the one hand, and behaviour where action follows a reasoning process and the conscious process of forming a conclusion and making a decision.

When a certain bacteria always moves towards light, away from some toxins, or what-have-you... that's not what I call "consious behaviour". To me that's "instinct". There is no reasoning process there. There is no conscious decision to move towards light followed by the conscious action of doing so. It is a pretty mindless process all the way down.

In humans, I'ld compare it more to for example the act of breathing. Nobody "thinks" about breathing. Nobody makes the "conscious decision" to breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out,... Nobody has to reason about "i need to breath or else I'll die".

We do it automatically. We do it even before we can think properly.
We do it instinctively.


All in all, I'ld conclude by saying that if you will call simple cells "conscious" to describe their behaviour of, for example, always moving towards a light source, then you are simply castrating that word and stripping it from all meaning.

See, Using a Choice Chamber to investigate Animal Responses to Stimuli at

Using a choice chamber to investigate animal responses to stimuli | Nuffield Foundation

Daniel Chamovitz, Ph.D. (Genetics) says his research has indicated “A plant... can see, smell and feel. It can mount a defense when under siege, and warn its neighbors of trouble on the way. A plant can even be said to have a memory.”

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-plants-think-daniel-chamovitz/

But can this be explored via modern Neuro science? Of course not. Plants do not have brains or even what we would call nervous systems, but that does not change the possibility of them possessing a different quality of consciousness than our own, just one specifically suited for their needs.

Again.... if such things fall under "consciousness" as well - then I don't know what that word actually means. Specifically, if such things can be called that.... then what would it mean to have NO consciousness? Not being alive?

This is not new, because the concept that all life is sentient actually goes back a few hundred years in theoretical science. But some scientists today are demonstrating the belief to have merit. Monica Gagliano for one example (Professor in Evolutionary Ecology and Adjunct Senior Research Fellow at the University of Western Australia), has dome experiments that indicate that the mimosa pudica plant can learn from experience. Her work indicates plants are aware.

No. It merely indicates that living things respond to their immediate environment.
The rest is just loaded words with no merrit and no justification.

So where is the line that separates living things that are aware, from living things that are only “automata” operating on pure biochemical reaction or chemically programmed instinct?

There you go again, confusingly using the word "aware" to describe the phenomena of reasoning and decision making.

I'ld say all living things are "aware" of their environment (note: not SELF-aware), in that sense that they all respond to stimuli from said environment. Whatever the underlying mechanism. An organism that doesn't do that, is an organism that won't survive much longer.

As for what I think you really mean (reasoning / decision making)...
I'ld start with identifying those organisms with a brain (giving them reasoning capabilities in one form or another) and those without one. That would be a nice start.

Keeping in mind also, that even us "intelligent" humans, also have instinctive behaviours, like breathing, for which do not engage in any reasoning, decision making or what-have-you. We don't need to "remind" ourselves that we need to breath. We just breath.

In fact, it's STOPPING with breathing that would require the conscious decision to do so.

Is there such a line? Remember when many people used to think fish do not feel?

Data changed their minds. Not speculation or opinions.

 

[pshun2404]

Under that definition, I'ld say that robots with motion- and light-sensors are both aware as well as conscious.

Is "instinctive behaviour" (like following light and thus moving away from darkness), under your definition, the same as having awareness/consiousness?

It sounds like it. I would disagree with that.

It seems to me that you are making NO distinction between behaviours that happen automatically / instinctively on the one hand, and behaviour where action follows a reasoning process and the conscious process of forming a conclusion and making a decision.

When a certain bacteria always moves towards light, away from some toxins, or what-have-you... that's not what I call "consious behaviour". To me that's "instinct". There is no reasoning process there. There is no conscious decision to move towards light followed by the conscious action of doing so. It is a pretty mindless process all the way down.

In humans, I'ld compare it more to for example the act of breathing. Nobody "thinks" about breathing. Nobody makes the "conscious decision" to breath in, breath out, breath in, breath out,... Nobody has to reason about "i need to breath or else I'll die".

We do it automatically. We do it even before we can think properly.
We do it instinctively.

All in all, I'ld conclude by saying that if you will call simple cells "conscious" to describe their behaviour of, for example, always moving towards a light source, then you are simply castrating that word and stripping it from all meaning.

Again.... if such things fall under "consciousness" as well - then I don't know what that word actually means. Specifically, if such things can be called that.... then what would it mean to have NO consciousness? Not being alive?

No. It merely indicates that living things respond to their immediate environment.
The rest is just loaded words with no merrit and no justification.

There you go again, confusingly using the word "aware" to describe the phenomena of reasoning and decision making.

I'ld say all living things are "aware" of their environment (note: not SELF-aware), in that sense that they all respond to stimuli from said environment. Whatever the underlying mechanism. An organism that doesn't do that, is an organism that won't survive much longer.

As for what I think you really mean (reasoning / decision making)...
I'ld start with identifying those organisms with a brain (giving them reasoning capabilities in one form or another) and those without one. That would be a nice start.

Keeping in mind also, that even us "intelligent" humans, also have instinctive behaviours, like breathing, for which do not engage in any reasoning, decision making or what-have-you. We don't need to "remind" ourselves that we need to breath. We just breath.

In fact, it's STOPPING with breathing that would require the conscious decision to do so.

Data changed their minds. Not speculation or opinions.

First I agree that it has been data that is changing our minds on this subject. And thanks for articulating your position so clearly, I get it, I do. However I do not agree with your first statement however because a Robot does NOT fall under that definition being that a Robot does not respond preferentially but as it is programmed (via information that has been put in from an outside intelligent force...unless you are stating that to be the case in cells) and does not recognize the difference spoken of.

 

[tas8831]

Another well published scientist a crackpot because you disagree?

Not because I disagree - but because I can spot a quack when I see one. He is a medical doctor, by the way, and has hitched his wagon the Deepak Chopra. Not much more needs to be said, IMO.

Questionable at best! He also makes many fine points. Regardless of some speculation (which you are also guilty of in some areas...I am sure) do you think cells might have some level of conscious awareness?

No.

I think, based on actual research, not guru-esque gibberish ala Chopra and friends, that cells can respond to certain stimuli. Many cells exhibit +/- chemotaxis, +/- phototaxis, etc. These are basically feedback loops, not conscious behavior. A few years ago, 'quorum sensing' in bacteria was put forth, mainly by anti-science types, to prove that bacteria had consciousness, but this was just spin, since quorum sensing is actually a stimulus-response activity in groups of bacteria.

DO they act as individuals interactive in their groups? Do they respond to their environments as external agents? Make choices? Favor one's that enhance their survival and avoid those that hinder it? And so on? Is awareness (which implicates consciousness) limited to only a brain and nervous system?

See above. If YOU want to imbue individual cells with consciousness, go for it, but I am unsure what that really has to do with anything, except to engage in some bland 'science doesn't have all the answers, so evolution is not true'! fantasy.

All this is irrelevant perhaps, but DO YOU think cells might have some level of conscious awareness?

No, unless one engages in some ENCODE-like definition expansion.

 

[tas8831]

We did an experiment once with flat worms. We added drops of saline to one side. Naturally they swam away from the saline. But was this simply biochemical? I do not think so. We shined a light on one area of the pool and they swam to where there was more light and swam away from the dark. Was this simply a biochemical response or was this evidence of preference? Is that why we avoid the darkness and prefer the light? Perhaps! I think all living things have some level of awareness and thus consciousness but I am fine that you do not agree. This was after all looking for peoples opinion.

But did these flat worms have the SAME GENES????

 

[pshun2404]

Not because I disagree - but because I can spot a quack when I see one. He is a medical doctor, by the way, and has hitched his wagon the Deepak Chopra. Not much more needs to be said, IMO.

No.

I think, based on actual research, not guru-esque gibberish ala Chopra and friends, that cells can respond to certain stimuli. Many cells exhibit +/- chemotaxis, +/- phototaxis, etc. These are basically feedback loops, not conscious behavior. A few years ago, 'quorum sensing' in bacteria was put forth, mainly by anti-science types, to prove that bacteria had consciousness, but this was just spin, since quorum sensing is actually a stimulus-response activity in groups of bacteria.

See above. If YOU want to imbue individual cells with consciousness, go for it, but I am unsure what that really has to do with anything, except to engage in some bland 'science doesn't have all the answers, so evolution is not true'! fantasy.

No, unless one engages in some ENCODE-like definition expansion.

As sad cop out as I have ever seen. He is published in many Journals. It matters not what he believes or does not believe about spiritual matters. Yes later in life he became a Zen Buddhist so what. He is a fine researcher as well and has done great work in Stem Cell research. But will you get stuck on just this one opinion based point and hound it to death as usual? Most likely....and then you insult the ENCODE consortium though it is comprised of 450 well published scientists from many fields...Oh Ma,n you think more highly of yourself than you ought....

Your opinion has been duly noted.

By the way, what about the others I mentioned? Are they also quacks and wackos? And why does your camp always rely on opinionated name calling and ad hominem attacks as if they prove your point or indicate you are a superior scientist to all of them? They merely present an alternative explanation of what is observed (like Gaglianlo).

 

[PsychoSarah]

We did an experiment once with flat worms. We added drops of saline to one side. Naturally they swam away from the saline. But was this simply biochemical? I do not think so. We shined a light on one area of the pool and they swam to where there was more light and swam away from the dark. Was this simply a biochemical response or was this evidence of preference? Is that why we avoid the darkness and prefer the light? Perhaps! I think all living things have some level of awareness and thus consciousness but I am fine that you do not agree. This was after all looking for peoples opinion.

-_- a flat worm is multicellular, not single celled. However, a decent measure of consciousness is variety in response and capacity to learn. It wouldn't matter how many times you cut a flatworm in half to cause it to become two flatworms (nature is neat), those flatworms would never react to your presence any differently than the first time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Thank you oh omniscient one...

-_- as if I would have to be omniscient to reason that an organism that literally cannot store any information from experiences isn't conscious.

Chemical trigger are certainly detectable, but we cannot know if there is not some level of consciousness involved. They are alive why on earth would we assume they are not aware?

Consciousness is a byproduct of brains, so it stands to reason that any organism that doesn't have one (or an analogous structure) isn't conscious.

 

[Gene2memE]

Lets not confuse these terms:

Consciousness - which includes both awareness of an environment and deliberate responses to it and awareness of self as separate from the environment.
Sentience - which is the ability to subjectively feel and experience sensation
Sapience - which is the ability to think and apply knowledge

All of these require self-awareness. So, unless you can demonstrate self-awareness, then you can't demonstrate consciousness, sentience or sapience.

All you have is a stimulus-response organism. Complex, yes, but still without self-referential ability. There's some interesting information here, but Dr Theise is mostly playing with language to generate interest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First I agree that it has been data that is changing our minds on this subject. And thanks for articulating your position so clearly, I get it, I do.

Np. I think it's an interesting subject.

However I do not agree with your first statement however because a Robot does NOT fall under that definition being that a Robot does not respond preferentially but as it is programmed (via information that has been put in from an outside intelligent force...unless you are stating that to be the case in cells) and does not recognize the difference spoken of.

Instinctive/automatic behaviour is "programmed" into organisms as well, through DNA.
Only there, the "programmer" is the natural process of evolution.

As such, indeed, I see no essential, functional, difference.

 

[tas8831]

Do you really think that the answer to this question is no more or less then just a matter of "opinion"?

Only at this point in history!

Interesting - so on the question of 'are cells - living things that lack any actual means of possessing 'consciousness' - aware and conscious?' is open ended at this point, new evidence could decide one way or the other but the jury is out to you.

Yet common descent? RIGHT OUT! because it is not 100% proven as of today.

Got it.