Are cells conscious?

[ding]

By whom? When? Show me the papers.




Show me the research.

I'll bet you $100 right now it uses a predefined definition of life.

Which as I've just shown, is not only inadequate but probably outright wrong.

And you call yourself a scientist. SMH.

 

[scruffy]

And you call yourself a scientist. SMH.

So, < crickets >

Just as I thought. You have no evidence. You're just regurgitating garbage you read on Google.

Tell ya what - NASA has a definition of life. It says:

"A self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".

You like that one?

 

[scruffy]

I think what I am saying is there is no empirical evidence which supports inanimate objects being alive or conscious.

Yes, actually there is. Lots of it.

The problem is, neither of those things can be measured. (Yet).

That's the big advantage my definition has, over yours. Mine is metric, it can be measured and quantified.

As a matter of fact, scientists all over the world are working on that very thing, as we speak.

There's at least three teams in the bay area working on it today, this morning. Google is very interested, so is Microsoft, and there's a company called Numenta in Redwood City that thinks they already have the math. (And the working hardware to test it).

Honestly, the math is a little above my pay grade. I looked at it, scratched my head, said "okay, good luck"... They're smart people, they'll figure it out. They have pretty much unlimited computational power, which I don't have and can't afford. The next question is "why is red red", and I finna think on that for a couple of days and see what pops out. I'm a biophysicist though, not an AI guy, I figure they'll have the answer before I will.

 

[ding]

So, < crickets >

Just as I thought. You have no evidence. You're just regurgitating garbage you read on Google.

Tell ya what - NASA has a definition of life. It says:

"A self sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution".

You like that one?

And you believe rocks meet that definition?

 

[ding]

Yes, actually there is. Lots of it.

The problem is, neither of those things can be measured. (Yet).

That's the big advantage my definition has, over yours. Mine is metric, it can be measured and quantified.

As a matter of fact, scientists all over the world are working on that very thing, as we speak.

There's at least three teams in the bay area working on it today, this morning. Google is very interested, so is Microsoft, and there's a company called Numenta in Redwood City that thinks they already have the math. (And the working hardware to test it).

Honestly, the math is a little above my pay grade. I looked at it, scratched my head, said "okay, good luck"... They're smart people, they'll figure it out. They have pretty much unlimited computational power, which I don't have and can't afford. The next question is "why is red red", and I finna think on that for a couple of days and see what pops out. I'm a biophysicist though, not an AI guy, I figure they'll have the answer before I will.

Where's the empirical evidence? Show me.

 

[scruffy]

And you believe rocks meet that definition?

NASA's definition? I find it quite inadequate.

 

[scruffy]

Where's the empirical evidence? Show me.

I asked you first.

 

[ding]

I asked you first.

Actually you didn't. I asked you first. But here you go.

Respiration, growth, excretion, reproduction, metabolization, movement, and responding to the environment

Now where's your's?

 

[scruffy]

Actually you didn't. I asked you first. But here you go.

Respiration, growth, excretion, reproduction, metabolization, movement, and responding to the environment

Now where's your's?

You call that empirical evidence?

I call that conjecture.

What proof do you have that any of that is necessary for life?

 

[scruffy]

Meanwhile - for those who are following the discussion about consciousness (which is the thread topic);-

Here is the alternative to my hypothesis. (The only one, so far - as far as I know - and I will state in advance that the two are not mutually exclusive).

The alternative is a theory promoted by Nobel Laureate Sir Roger Penrose, and anesthesiologist Dr. Stuart Hameroff. They call it "orch or", which basically means an orchestrated quantum collapse.

The theory begins with the biophysics of the tryptophan in both tubulin subunits of microtubules. These are pi-electron bonds that happen to be aligned in such a way that quantum entanglement can occur between them.

The thing is, these subunits are arranged in regular lattices along the microtubules, meaning that the entangled electrons can travel along their length.

Sir Roger is of the opinion that it is gravity which causes quantum collapse - an entanglement "can't stand gravity", so to speak - so any large mass will break the entanglement. Stu and Roger say that it is these micro-collapses that equate with consciousness.

The experimental evidence comes mainly from anesthetics that interact with microtubules, in the neurons in the brainstorm near the blood brain barrier.

Here is a pretty good summary of Sir Roger's view on the matter:

Neural Circuits, Microtubule Processing, Brain’s Electromagnetic Field—Components of Self-Awareness

The known theories discussing the essence of consciousness have been recently updated. This prompts an attempt to integrate these explanations concerning several distinct components of the consciousness phenomenon such as the ego, and qualia perceptions. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[scruffy]

The difference between my proposal and Sir Roger's, is that mine is macroscopic, whereas his is microscopic.

Mine "simulates" a quantum collapse topologically, and it depends on the rest of the network for the phenomenon of consciousness.

On the other hand, Sir Roger invokes some complicated physics which I don't fully understand (not being a full fledged physicist, but merely a lowly biophysicist which is something different). He talks about quantum entanglements acting backwards in time, which smacks of a many-worlds view, thus it seems to me that his would require some form of string theory. Maybe one of you physics types can explain it more fully.

 

[ding]

You call that empirical evidence?

I call that conjecture.

What proof do you have that any of that is necessary for life?

You are making yourself look like an idiot.

Since you are arguing everything is alive it is idiotic to be arguing against the empirical evidence for living things.

 

[ding]

The difference between my proposal and Sir Roger's, is that mine is macroscopic, whereas his is microscopic.

Mine "simulates" a quantum collapse topologically, and it depends on the rest of the network for the phenomenon of consciousness.

On the other hand, Sir Roger invokes some complicated physics which I don't fully understand (not being a full fledged physicist, but merely a lowly biophysicist which is something different). He talks about quantum entanglements acting backwards in time, which smacks of a many-worlds view, thus it seems to me that his would require some form of string theory. Maybe one of you physics types can explain it more fully.

I think you are a mental patient.

 

[scruffy]

The common element though, in both hypotheses, is the unfolding of time.

The only difference is "how" it occurs

 

[scruffy]

I think you are a mental patient.

lol

I've been called worse.

So that's all you've got?

 

[ding]

lol

I've been called worse.

So that's all you've got?

You are a moron.

 

[scruffy]

You are a moron.

Okay, tell you what -;if you want to talk about life let's move to the other thread. This one is about consciousness

 

[scruffy]

In Sir Roger's theory, every quantum collapse equates with a qualia -so it is not entirely clear to me how or why these would be localized in our brains.

The key to both theories (his and mine) is the meaning of "dt". We seem to agree that some level of instantaneousness is needed - in my version it has to be connected with the cycles in the earring, therefore the fractal structure is mandatory. In Sir Roger's version the connection between a quantum collapse and the rest of the network is not made clear.

 

[scruffy]

So then - to further elaborate on the relationship between single cells and the human brain - the hippocampus is where the "map of reality" is built. What is the equivalent in a single cell?

The medial frontal lobe that's right in front of the hippocampus is where context dependent planning occurs. It selects the memories that are relevant for the current hippocampal context. What is the equivalent in a single cell?

One clue comes from the immune system, where there are specialized lymphocytes (called B-cells) that memorize antigens. They perform this one task exceedingly well, and there are no other cells that do it - indicating to many geneticists that DNA is being modified. The methods known to occur are clonal expansion and clonal differentiation.

Immunological memory - Immunobiology - NCBI Bookshelf

Memory B cell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are also memory T-cells, the point being these cells are highly specialized. They perform this function at the expense of other functions. Y'r-average cell is not as specialized. It has only a "small amount" of this capability. And, only a small fraction of the DNA is labile, in most cells.

Science is currently putting together a map of lability structure and function.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0952791517300316

Note the vocabulary in the above link. "Somatic hyper mutation". And "positively selected over time". In other words, the cell is deliberately changing its own programming, and then retaining and amplifying those changes.

Which is the exact same thing that happens in the hippocampus of the human brain

 

[scruffy]

By the way - neurons are sensitive to external magnetic fields in the picoTesla range.

Pineal-hypothalamic tract mediation of picotesla magnetic fields in the treatment of neurological disorders - PubMed

The objective of this study is analysis of the clinical efficacy of picotesla magnetic fields in the treatment of epilepsy, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. The method utilized involved the exogenous application of physiologic, very weak magnetic fields to the brain by Sandyk...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

When a neuron fires, it creates a mag field of about 3 microTeslas, which is a million times higher.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Strength-of-the-magnetic-field-as-a-function-of-distance-from-the-center-of-an-axon-At_fig4_327250904#:~:text=A%20single%20neuron%20can%20produce,from%20the%20neurilemma%20and%20axolemma.

This observation is sufficient to validate the importance of compactification at dt.