Watch and consider VII Do cells have consciousness

[PsychoSarah]

Whay hypothesis is that?

What do you mean by "hypothesis"? It's known how cell-to-cell recognition works, as well as how cells allow larger molecules inside.

 

[pshun2404]

Ah! I see your misunderstanding now....you indicate you thought my “initial assertion” was that you “simply cannot know' that simple tropisms are 'base level mechanical (biochemical) processes” and that was not my assertion at all. Simple tropisms, as you called them, are indeed able to be explored as the material processes involved. My assertion was that you cannot know I was equivocating using teleological and anthropomorphic labels (which I was not). The point was, and still is, that some reputable scientists see certain behaviors (regardless of the mechanisms involved) as being indicative of consciousness. It is they themselves who use such language.

As James Shapiro said “Examination of colony development and organization led me to appreciate how extensive multicellular collaboration is among the majority of bacterial species. Contemporary research in many laboratories on cell–cell signaling, symbiosis and pathogenesis show that bacteria utilise sophisticated mechanisms for intercellular communication and even have the ability to commandeer the basic cell biology of ‘higher’ plants and animals to meet their own needs. This remarkable series of observations requires us to revise basic ideas about biological information processing and recognise that even the smallest cells are sentient beings.”

Other Third Way evolutionists (and Information Science and Physics and more) use similar language because they interpreting the same factors in a different way. They know the mechanisms and processes that are involved but are no longer just simply accepting them as the cause. Do the hormones and neuronal connections cause “falling in love” or does “falling in lover” cause new or different connections and hormonal changes?

I perhaps should have been more specific...I thought this was clear...

 

[pshun2404]

What do you mean by "hypothesis"? It's known how cell-to-cell recognition works, as well as how cells allow larger molecules inside.

Okay! Only I proposed neither hypothesis. No one would doubt HUMANS are conscious but we can certainly know the material mechanisms and processes involved in person to person recognition and how we allow certain things into our bodies! Knowing these things, does not exclude consciousness.

 

[Speedwell]

Sorry! It was total sarcasm. Of course they are not what some call creationists (I have no idea about their personal beliefs).

As I understand it Shapiro is an atheist and Margulis was a secular Jew. Not what anyone would call a creationist. Nor is the "third way" a creationist movement.
I know, you were just indulging in hyperbole, but I see a lamentable tendency amongst creationists to paint anyone who is critical of "pure" modern synthesis evolution as one of their own, a herald of the collapse of science and the triumph of Bible-believing Evangelical Protestantism.

 

[pshun2404]

As I understand it Shapiro is an atheist and Margulis was a secular Jew. Not what anyone would call a creationist. Nor is the "third way" a creationist movement.
I know, you were just indulging in hyperbole, but I see a lamentable tendency amongst creationists to paint anyone who is critical of "pure" modern synthesis evolution as one of their own, a herald of the collapse of science and the triumph of Bible-believing Evangelical Protestantism.

A tragic reality I am certainly not a part of. I see a lamentable tendency to assume that everyone that disagrees with some or another aspect of the standard evolution indoctrination is a wacko or a quack or worse.

Ever explore the differences between the modern synthesis core assumptions and the extended evolutionary synthesis core assumptions? And these are all qualified biologists. Some (in forums like these) in a sort of cognitive dissonance, equivocate here and there as convenient but in some cases one negates the other and well...both cannot be true...one is true and the other false or else both are false but both cannot be true...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Okay! Only I proposed neither hypothesis. No one would doubt HUMANS are conscious but we can certainly know the material mechanisms and processes involved in person to person recognition and how we allow certain things into our bodies! Knowing these things, does not exclude consciousness.

I never said it did, however, we both agree that consciousness demands some degree of choice. Thus, if an organism can only respond to a stimulus one way, then it is not making a conscious choice. Since cell to cell recognition between single celled organisms and within multicellular organisms is entirely contingent upon the surface proteins of the cells recognizing each other and cells cannot choose to reject a cell (in the case of autoimmune disorders, white blood cells that consistently DON'T recognize self are produced, so they always respond in error).

If individual cells could change their behavior on cell to cell recognition, such as a defective white blood cell recognizing its mistake after the body gives off distress signals, autoimmune disorders wouldn't have the capacity to be so severe.

 

[pshun2404]

I never said it did, however, we both agree that consciousness demands some degree of choice. Thus, if an organism can only respond to a stimulus one way, then it is not making a conscious choice. Since cell to cell recognition between single celled organisms and within multicellular organisms is entirely contingent upon the surface proteins of the cells recognizing each other and cells cannot choose to reject a cell (in the case of autoimmune disorders, white blood cells that consistently DON'T recognize self are produced, so they always respond in error).

If individual cells could change their behavior on cell to cell recognition, such as a defective white blood cell recognizing its mistake after the body gives off distress signals, autoimmune disorders wouldn't have the capacity to be so severe.

Read this for one example...take'ya five minutes

Same types of cell respond differently to stimulus, study shows

There are others but this one is brief and concise.

 

[Speedwell]

A tragic reality I am certainly not a part of. I see a lamentable tendency to assume that everyone that disagrees with some or another aspect of the standard evolution indoctrination is a wacko or a quack or worse.

That's something of a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps justified by the fact that most of the creationists who appear in forums like this one are politically motivated Evangelicals who don't even understand what Darwin's basic insight was about, much less modern synthesis. The second-order processes that we now know modify basic random variation and selection are only seen as evidence that scientists are abandoning evolution for biblical creationism in droves. And really, unless one understands how random variation and selection can produce novelty there is no point in going on--for similar reasons that newtonian mechanics is still taught to physics students.

 

[pshun2404]

That's something of a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps justified by the fact that most of the creationists who appear in forums like this one are politically motivated Evangelicals who don't even understand what Darwin's basic insight was about, much less modern synthesis. The second-order processes that we now know modify basic random variation and selection are only seen as evidence that scientists are abandoning evolution for biblical creationism in droves. And really, unless one understands how random variation and selection can produce novelty there is no point in going on--for similar reasons that newtonian mechanics is still taught to physics students.

I agree. Sadly there are extremists in every kind of group...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Read this for one example...take'ya five minutes

Same types of cell respond differently to stimulus, study shows

There are others but this one is brief and concise.

Hmm, read more closely: “What we see is that differences between cells matter,” Covert said. “Even the nuances can play a role.”

Basically put, it is minor DIFFERENCES in cells of the same tissue, as well as their activities of chemically signaling each other that accounts for the differences in their responses to the same stimulus.

I would also like to comment that testing eukaryotic cells over prokaryotic cells when your hypothesis encompasses both is extremely erroneous. Eukaryotic cells mutate a lot more per generation, and this is a major potential source of error. On the plus side for prokaryotes, it's a simple matter to isolate a colony that all arose from just one colony forming unit, or CFU, which restricts greatly how much genetic diversity within a population can influence results. I say CFU and not cell, because a lot of bacteria have growth habits which result in colonies generally forming from small groups of cells rather than just 1.

 

[pshun2404]

Hmm, read more closely: “What we see is that differences between cells matter,” Covert said. “Even the nuances can play a role.”

Basically put, it is minor DIFFERENCES in cells of the same tissue, as well as their activities of chemically signaling each other that accounts for the differences in their responses to the same stimulus.

I would also like to comment that testing eukaryotic cells over prokaryotic cells when your hypothesis encompasses both is extremely erroneous. Eukaryotic cells mutate a lot more per generation, and this is a major potential source of error. On the plus side for prokaryotes, it's a simple matter to isolate a colony that all arose from just one colony forming unit, or CFU, which restricts greatly how much genetic diversity within a population can influence results. I say CFU and not cell, because a lot of bacteria have growth habits which result in colonies generally forming from small groups of cells rather than just 1.

Though I take no stand, your assessment still does not demonstrate cells cannot be conscious on their own level.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Though I take no stand, your assessment still does not demonstrate cells cannot be conscious on their own level.

I'm not saying I made a conclusive argument against it, only that, as far as the current evidence is concerned, it would not be logical to conclude that individual cells are sentient. Basically, that the null hypothesis still stands.

I personally do doubt that any organism without, at a minimum, a basic nervous system could have the capacity for consciousness, since it's pretty clear what organelles cells do and do not have and what their functions are. This is my bread and butter, seeing as Biomedical Sciences is my major.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, sentience is another level, but knowing the mechanics and processes does not exclude consciousness (as my human to human example indicates). Keep an open mind in your studies. Once upon a time we thought plants were not aware, but now we know better.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Yes, sentience is another level, but knowing the mechanics and processes does not exclude consciousness (as my human to human example indicates).

No, but with no evidence supporting the idea that consciousness extends to individual cells, again, the null hypothesis wins.

Keep an open mind in your studies. Once upon a time we thought plants were not aware, but now we know better.

-_- plants respond to external stimuli. In fact, all living things do. The idea that plants don't is one that was discarded centuries ago and was never consistently held to begin with.

However, consider a question that popped up while I was searching for information on plant responses to stimuli: "do plants feel pain?" Certainly, plants do respond to being damaged, but they measurably do not feel pain. Pain is a function of a nervous system, which plants do not have. Heck, thanks to genetic disorders, we even know that having a nervous system alone doesn't mean a living thing feels pain, since people can be born without the capacity to feel it.

-_- furthermore, that mistakes have been made in the past doesn't mean that conclusions made today are all incorrect.

 

[pshun2404]

Your camp forever touts that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so NO the Null Hypothesis wins nothing. AND No! I would not say plants FEEL pain as we do (hence not definable as sentient)...

Mistakes can be stepping stones to greater truths...and no, all we have concluded in our times is not incorrect (never said or implied that), and neither is it all true (which can be said of all times past and I suspect in the future as well).

 

[tas8831]

The point was, and still is, that some reputable scientists see certain behaviors (regardless of the mechanisms involved) as being indicative of consciousness.

And some 'reputable scientists' thought life on earth came from space bacteria. And some 'reputable scientists' thought X-rays were a hoax. and some 'reputable scientists' are anti-vaccine.

What is your underlying premise here - that if a 'reputable scientist' claims something (without actually providing data-driven support) that is must be worthy of consideration? that it must be true (espeically if it goes against the 'mainstream')?

 

[tas8831]

Read this for one example...take'ya five minutes

Same types of cell respond differently to stimulus, study shows

There are others but this one is brief and concise.

It is a shame that so many researchers use such tabloid-esque superlatives - I cringed at the old 'back to the drawing board' quip... This despite this 'admission':

"In the images, the scientists could see that the cells responded in various ways, with different timing and number of oscillations, yet their primary response, in many respects, was equal."

2 other things I found odd - the actual study referred to in the news release you linked was not cited or linked to. And when I checked out the author's site, I am not sure which actual publication they were referring to:

https://med.stanford.edu/profiles/markus-covert?tab=publications

 

[pshun2404]

And some 'reputable scientists' thought life on earth came from space bacteria. And some 'reputable scientists' thought X-rays were a hoax. and some 'reputable scientists' are anti-vaccine.

What is your underlying premise here - that if a 'reputable scientist' claims something (without actually providing data-driven support) that is must be worthy of consideration? that it must be true (espeically if it goes against the 'mainstream')?

Yes, how dare "reputable scientists" like Crick, Sagan, and Dawkins postulate such a thing....we should not even consider it, right?

What is your underlying premise here - that if a 'reputable scientist' claims something (without actually providing data-driven support) that is must be worthy of consideration?

No! I will save that for the strict materialists. I just said to consider the video and I am satisfied it generated some interesting opinions.

 

[tas8831]

Yes, how dare "reputable scientists" like Crick, Sagan, and Dawkins postulate such a thing....we should not even consider it, right?

Well, let us see the goods!

Show me where Crick, Sagan and Dawkins claim cells and atoms have consciousness.

Or are you referring to 'space bacteria' (derailing)?

Let us see where Dawkins postulates panspermia - let me guess, it will be that out of context
clip that made the rounds wherein he was answering a 'what if' question?

And Crick - from 1971 - wherein he wrote in the abstract:

It now seems unlikely that extraterrestrial living organisms could have reached the earth either as spores driven by the radiation pressure from another star or as living organisms imbedded in a meteorite. As an alternative to these nineteenth-century mechanisms, we have considered Directed Panspermia, the theory that organisms were deliberately transmitted to the earth by intelligent beings on another planet. We conclude that it is possible that life reached the earth in this way, but that the scientific evidence is inadequate at the present time to say anything about the probability. We draw attention to the kinds of evidence that might throw additional light on the topic.​

Golly, he is TOTALLY running with it!


Or maybe you will produce a doctored quote like you did for Blum, or maybe you will link a paper claiming it shows that cells pick which mutations to keep despite the paper indicating no such thing?

What is your underlying premise here - that if a 'reputable scientist' claims something (without actually providing data-driven support) that is must be worthy of consideration?

No! I will save that for the strict materialists. I just said to consider the video and I am satisfied it generated some interesting opinions.

Unless you don't like the opinions, then you insult.

 

[tas8831]

Hmm, read more closely: “What we see is that differences between cells matter,” Covert said. “Even the nuances can play a role.”

Basically put, it is minor DIFFERENCES in cells of the same tissue, as well as their activities of chemically signaling each other that accounts for the differences in their responses to the same stimulus.

Sure, but the HEADLINE!