[Fis] "the mother of information"--MINI-BRAINS
Bill
wbmiller1 at cox.net
Thu Jan 31 20:49:46 CET 2019
Dear Pedro and friends,
I am not at all surprised that there would be considerable
resistance to the concept that cells are conscious. When I first
confronted the data about the capacities of cells, I was as unsettled at
the thought of cellular consciousness as any of you. However, scientists
must either accept the data or overturn it. In this instance,
experiments and observations of cells confirm that they can assess
information, understand in their own way that it is ambiguous (i.e. they
are not living machines), can problem-solve, make contingent decisions
and engage in sophisticated risk assessment for the trading of
resources. I do believe that these are conscious actions, and certainly
it is a form of intelligence. Ameoba can solve mazes, i.e. demonstrate
sufficient memory and problem-solving ability to do so.
Two additional points, if I may. First, although I would be
the first to admit that accepting that cells have basal consciousness
undermines the romance of our belief in our exceptionalism, It does
offer a parsimonious means of understanding the knotty issue of
consciousness and ends the artificial separation invoked by the idea of
a 'hard' and 'easy' problem. Surely, nothing in consciousness studies
is easy. But, a basal consciousness that is imbued within every one of
our cells, and then is subject to emergent augmentation in the
holobionic form which entails our actual living circumstances, makes
substantial sense. I would offer that, in this instance, the simplest
solution is the best, ...... a single epitomic consciousness that is
subject to augmentation and adjustment. This can then be primarily
considered to represent the enhanced ability discriminate information
and it full range of ambiguities that links to further ability to
withhold reaction to it that information prior to its deployment into
discrete action. Importantly, studies of rules of logic and thinking
still remain essential, since we express our cellular aggregate
consciousness in its own idiosyncratic form which is highly complex and
requires in depth explanation.
Secondly, and with great respect, I do disagree with the
thought that accepting cellular consciousness carries any necessary
relationship to panpsychism. Of course, I have no actual idea how
consciousness began. For my own part, I do not find the arguments of
panpsychism to be at all appealing.
However, as scientists, we must accept what experimental
data shows. Cells have certain faculties that do indeed exist, .... and
these comport with consciousness. How this was instantiated in the
cellular form ....... well, I really cannot say except to offer that it
would most likely have been an instantiation under the boundary
conditions of the cell as a derivative of thermodynamics that simply
exists as a state function. Thus, it is a second order derivative of the
physical universe, not arising from the Big Bang Singularity.
What matters to me most, as an evolutionary biologist, is not
the explicit origin of consciousness, but the fact that once it is
appropriately weighed as existing in the cellular form, then an entirely
coherent evolutionary narrative emerges which changes evolutionary
biology from being natural selection dependent to a narrative of the
cellular measurement of information to seek its own preservation in
preferred homeostatic equipoise.
If I might offer, ..... the origin of consciousness might be
most likely found through researching the exact means by which an
organism attaches to information space-time, which reduces then, to
studying the origin of life, at least in my own terms.
Lastly, it is a privilege to be allowed to participate in
the debate. Many thanks.
Best regards,
Bill
On 1/31/2019 11:19 AM, Karl Javorszky wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> in one of the comments there was a reference to some studies that
> suggest that space characteristics can change and thus influence
> concatenation among materials. This idea is very much supported by the
> numbers. Since the discussion has moved forward on the distinction
> between conscious or not, the supportive statement is somewhat late,
> but is supportive nevertheless.
>
> As to conscious or subconscious:
> this is a switch the button of which is is in the office and the
> valves are in the basement. It is irrelevant, whether the subject says
> that he has pushed the button or ineed does push the button, but the
> vlve is not moving. What we have to concentrate on is the state of the
> valve (restricting or allowing circulation). If a valve is closed all
> times, the problem is not that it is subconscious but rather that it
> is closed. One would want to deal with a case of inhibition, if action
> is requested. The technical term for the distinction would be synton
> -dyston. Synton are symptoms which the subject acknowledges to possess
> and identifies with (I maintain discipline in my family as I see fit)
> or says is alien to him (I don't know why but I always yell at the
> brat and feel remorse afterwards) /This example would be with valve
> too much open./
>
> In the context of FIS:
> We all know that fundamental rules of thinking are logically true and
> delineate that what is reasonable from that what is a nonsense. In
> whatever measure we think ourselves freethinkers and innovative, it
> simply will not work if we do not open the valve which enables one to
> think differently. If no flying fish can exist, it is not reasonable
> to look at documentaries about fauna of the Amazonas where such things
> are shown. Please consider the following table (hope it comes across
> readable).
>
> *Placing the Subject*
>
> *Concept*
>
>
>
> *Traditional*
>
>
>
> *New*
>
> *Units*
>
>
>
> all alike
>
>
>
> all different
>
> **
>
>
>
> O O O O O O O
>
>
>
> ϗ Ϙ ϼ ж ѭ ԉ
>
> *distinguishable*
>
>
>
> no
>
>
>
> yes
>
> *Sorting makes sense*
>
>
>
> no
>
>
>
> yes
>
> *Different sequences can be seen*
>
>
>
> no
>
>
>
> yes
>
> *Ideas about sequences reasonable*
>
>
>
> no, because there is nothing to talk about
>
>
>
> yes
>
> *Ideas about different sequences reasonable*
>
>
>
> no, because sequences are all alike
>
>
>
> yes
>
> *Algorithm of resequencing worth thinking about*
>
>
>
> no different sequences, so no resequencing thinkable
>
>
>
> very much so
>
> *Anything to see?*
>
>
>
> no
>
>
>
> oh, what a spectacle
>
> Please consider that all logical statements about elements of a set
> deal with mental concepts that are different to each other. Once we
> understand the subject is outside the traditional edifice of thinking,
> we can willingly learn to un-inhibit the taboos about dealing with
> such things that are different. In that segment is the stuff
> information is made of to be found.
>
> Karl
>
> Am Do., 31. Jan. 2019 um 13:59 Uhr schrieb jose luis perez velazquez
> <jlpvjlpv at gmail.com <mailto:jlpvjlpv at gmail.com>>:
>
> Greeting again, colleagues. I agree that when a sensory-motor
> loop that interacts with an environment is closed, anything can
> happen. This is along the lines of that neural closure I was
> mentioning in a previous comment I posted a few days ago.
> But I am not sure I agree with conscious cells. I know some
> propose that even atoms or elementary particles are conscious, and
> with all due respect for their ideas, to me this is like asking
> whether a water molecule is gas, solid or liquid. One or two
> molecules of water don't make a phase, phases are "emergent"
> property of a large set of "waters". Hence I don't think one or
> two cells can display self-awareness/consciousness. I would admit
> that among the several features of consciousness, one single cell,
> or better yet, two connected neurons, may possess one: they
> process "information" in the sense of exchange of matter/energy
> between them and with the environment, but if we call that
> consciousness, even an extremely primordial consciousness, then as
> Pedro mentioned, we end up in panpsychism.
>
> Regards
> JL
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 1:24 PM Pedro C. Marijuan
> <pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>> wrote:
>
> Dear Bill and FIS colleagues,
>
> Nice comments. Although agreeing with the basic orientation, I
> would change a few words. For instance, that "every cell has
> self-referential consciousness" would make more sense, in my
> opinion, with the term "intelligence." I remember that Lynn
> Margulis also used the C- term applied to living cells, but it
> conduces to a form of panpsychism that extends the problem and
> by doing so pretends to solve it, but does not advance it a
> iota. Consciousness has a special cellular-molecular
> underpinning that continues defying the scientific efforts to
> decipher it.
>
> In response to Malcolm (offline), brain organoid research is a
> new field that opens new possibilities--in brain development,
> medically for some tumors, disorders such as epilepsy or
> autism, etc. The most serious inconvenient (in words of
> Christof Koch) is ethical: "The closest they get to preterm
> infant, the more they should worry." The leading researcher A.
> Muotri, plans to connect them to other brain/body parts
> organoids. Then, my speculation is that if sensory inputs are
> provided, and some "action" external connection is established
> (eg, via EEG sensors connected to outside actuators), then a
> sui generis form of sensory-motor loop could be closed, and...
> I really don't know.
>
> Best--Pedro
>
>
> El 29/01/2019 a las 22:13, Bill escribió:
>> Dear Pedro,
>> I have not previously contributed to this thread, but thought
>> that you and your terrific readership might be interested in
>> this article.
>>
>> Miller Jr, W.B., Torday, J.S. and Baluška, F., 2018.
>> Biological evolution as defense of'self'. /Progress in
>> biophysics and molecular biology/.
>>
>> Based within the conclusions defended in that article, there
>> should be no surprise about the experimental findings you
>> mention below. Every cell has self-referential consciousness,
>> within its basal limits, and assesses and deploys information
>> as communication to problem-solve. Hence, the researchers are
>> not close to a pre-emergence of consciousness, since it
>> exists as the definition of life and they are experimenting
>> with living cells. In my opinion, the researchers nicely
>> substantiate the arguments within the above paper. The
>> pre-emergence you mention below would then be prior to its
>> instantiation in the living cell, which would be somewhere
>> along the trajectory of the molecular attachment to
>> information space-time that changes physical data to
>> biological information.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bill
>>
>> On 1/29/2019 11:28 AM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
>>> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>>>
>>> An interesting twist on what could be the minimal
>>> requirements for consciousness has recently arisen (Nature
>>> News, 15 Nov. 2018). Lab-grown mini-brains, or better, brain
>>> organoids obtained from stem cells and coaxed to form
>>> cortical tissue, show amazing properties of structure,
>>> connectivity, and synchronicity of their neural discharges.
>>> Up to the point that ethical questions have been raised. The
>>> neural types, the genes expressed, and the "EEG records" are
>>> surprisingly similar to those seen in real human brains of
>>> preterm babies. The organoids themselves have been in
>>> culture for 10 months. How close could they be to a primary
>>> form or say to a pre-emergence of consciousness? Although
>>> grown for medical purposes, if these organoids, or more
>>> complex ones, are hooked to organoid forms of sensory organs
>>> (eye, hear) what would happen? Would these sensory organoids
>>> open real windows to these mini-brains towards the external
>>> world? Could they be sort of an instantiation of Putnam's
>>> "brain in a bat"? Too many questions one can formulate...
>>>
>>> Best--Pedro
>>>
>>>
>>> El 22/01/2019 a las 13:25, GUEVARA ERRA RAMON MARIANO escribió:
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> I have some comments on the question by Krassimir. In our
>>>> paper we talked about consciousness but I think the results
>>>> can also be interpreted in a wider sense.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, with open or closed eyes, a person is not more or
>>>> less conscious than with closed eyes, also seems to me.
>>>> There is simply more sensory input with eyes opened, and
>>>> presumably more information processing.
>>>>
>>>> So, going back to our paper, we measured the information
>>>> content in the brain network, and see that in some states
>>>> there is more information content than in others. Now, if
>>>> you are unconscious, in a medical sense, say you fainted or
>>>> you are in coma, the information content is very low. But
>>>> also if you switch off part of the sensory input. In both
>>>> cases what you measure is information processing.
>>>> In other words, our measure is good at revealing the amount
>>>> of information processing in large scale brain networks.
>>>> Incidentally, it serves to contrast conscious and
>>>> unconscious states as consciousness is related to
>>>> information processing. But not only, it also serves to
>>>> contrast states with different sensory input, as in the
>>>> eyes opened/ eyes closed case, even when both seem to be
>>>> conscious states.
>>>> It would be interesting to see results from an experiment
>>>> where subjects have sensory deprivation.
>>>>
>>>> Regarding consciousness, I don't know of a method to
>>>> quantify it behaviorally. Actually, even the definition is
>>>> elusive. Without a behavioral quantification, all we can do
>>>> is to rely on an empirical, medical use of the concept and
>>>> say "this state is more conscious than that state".
>>>>
>>>> I agree with Karl , this question is very important,
>>>> weather something is alive or not, and is perhaps related
>>>> to the question of begin conscious or not. They may be
>>>> examples of "major evolutionary transitions" (Maynard Smith
>>>> and Szathmary). In this sense I have a comment. There seems
>>>> to be a believe in certain communities that intelligence
>>>> and /or consciousness would appear as a result of the
>>>> accumulation of processing units, with networks of
>>>> sufficient complexity. So, an artificial intelligence could
>>>> appear if we have a very complex and large set of
>>>> artificial neurons (it could even be a simulation, it
>>>> doesn't have to be physical). I disagree with this optimism
>>>> on historical grounds. There was a similar wave of
>>>> optimism after the Miller - Urey experiment on the origin
>>>> of life, long time ago, and look where we are now. As long
>>>> as I know, a self-replicating artificial cell cannot be
>>>> created from inorganic molecules. I think this is the case
>>>> because, of the large amount of possibilities that gives
>>>> molecular combinations, chemical reactions, etc, only a few
>>>> can be qualified as "alive". And the more the system is
>>>> complex, the more there are combinations. Is the selection
>>>> of the correct combinations that is difficult. One could
>>>> say the same about the brain, where in this case the units
>>>> are neurons. There is a nice argument in one of Penrose's
>>>> books about this. The cerebellum and the cerebral cortex
>>>> have the same order of magnitude neurons. However, we don't
>>>> tend to believe that the cerebellum is the material basis
>>>> of consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Ramon
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Fis mailing list
>>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>> Pedro C. Marijuán
>>> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>>>
>>> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
>>> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
>>> -------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>> Libre de virus. www.avast.com
>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>>
>>>
>>> <#m_-3050146197459198583_m_4879070233920180112_m_-1969826322156194072_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Fis mailing list
>>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fis mailing list
>> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
>> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------
> Pedro C. Marijuán
> Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
>
> pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es <mailto:pcmarijuan.iacs at aragon.es>
> http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es <mailto:Fis at listas.unizar.es>
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fis mailing list
> Fis at listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20190131/20426654/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list