Thread: Do Cells Think - And Is This What They Sound Like?

Originally Posted by spockman

Probably. But that doesn't change that it is most likley just a programmed reaction. It doesn't neccasserily 'know' how to respond to that signal, it just does so instinctually. It's not as if there is any sort of conclusive evidence to support that it is a conciouss decision or one made from the cells own inferences. (Don't know if you were implying that, Xaqaria, but the article did.)

How do you expect to draw the line on what is conscious without knowing what causes consciousness? Our conscious actions are a direct result of those neurons supposed "programmed reaction" (which is obviously wrong unless you are arguing for a "programmer" i.e. god). Why is it that what we do is conscious but the things that make us do what we do are not conscious?

Programmed, actions, chemical reactions from evolution, it's all semantics. A cell has no voluntary recall. A human does. That, to me, has an intrinsic value in humans and all life forms with developed limbic systems. (The part of the brain with conciouss memory and emotion.) Chimpanzees and humans also have cerebral cortexs, making our thought process entirley unique.

No, cells don't think. Cell behavior is just a result of chemical reactions.

...let me get this right, O. The argument is this:

Individual neurons make sounds. Therefore, individual neurons are conscious.

...whaaaaaaat?

What on Earth is this page about? There's no information about anything at all. I'm guessing they've reformatted some electrical signals into a sound wave; so what?? So my fridge is conscious now?

Unless I've gotten the wrong end of the stick here, this is really one of the silliest things I've ever seen and an embarassment to that blogger and the 'scientist'.

Originally Posted by Xei

...let me get this right, O. The argument is this:

Individual neurons make sounds. Therefore, individual neurons are conscious.

...whaaaaaaat?

I don't quite interpret it that way. What I got was:

Originally Posted by Article

Professor Ford compares the sound to seabirds wheeling over a cliff-top colony, and claims it demonstrates a problem solving propensity....intelligent behaviour.

This is very vague, yes, but what it implies is that there was a certain complexity in the 'call and response' of the neurons' "chattering." I won't be so bold as to say that that is exactly what is being said, but that's what I get out of it, and is part of the reason I would like to know more about it. It seems to me that the article is very shallow, and doesn't quite get into everything. Either that, or the scientist is a crack-pot, no doubt, but I'm willing to at least grant that there is probably much more about the "chattering" than the article went into detail about.

Originally Posted by article

But many single-celled organisms are also capable of constructing elaborate homes, repairing themselves, and even hunting for food. When we consider the significance of these observations, professor Ford concludes, we must acknowledge that these cells are taking decisions, adapting to situations, and working out what to do when confronted with a problem.

I actually think this is a good argument. Many single-celled organisms do things that we conscious beings do, on a smaller scale. I'm sure if some super-being were to one day stumble upon us, and we were the size of single-celled organisms to them and had no way of communicating with them, they would see us as inferior creatures as well. It is the intrinsic arrogance that comes with being a superior.

It is only that we know ourselves, relatively, that we know exactly how complex we really are.

Have we quantified the extent to where cells do these tasks [adapting, problem-solving, home-construction, etc.]? I don't know if we have or not. With no way to speak to these cells, how do we know that the bio-machine that governs what they do is not sentient?

I believe that that is the crux of the argument the article is proposing.

This is very vague, yes, but what it implies is that there was a certain complexity in the 'call and response' of the neurons' "chattering." I won't be so bold as to say that that is exactly what is being said, but that's what I get out of it, and is part of the reason I would like to know more about it. It seems to me that the article is very shallow, and doesn't quite get into everything. Either that, or the scientist is a crack-pot, no doubt, but I'm willing to at least grant that there is probably much more about the "chattering" than the article went into detail about.

Well, this is all very silly then. Everybody knows that neurons sending electrical signals to each other is the basis of mental activity; this has been known for a century or more. All that has been done here is to convert the electrical activity into sound; no new discoveries have been made at all and nothing new has been learnt. Yes, neurons send signals to each other, but that has been known for a very long time; also, it does not make them any more intelligent than, say, a couple of walkie talkies.

I actually think this is a good argument. Many single-celled organisms do things that we conscious beings do, on a smaller scale. I'm sure if some super-being were to one day stumble upon us, and we were the size of single-celled organisms to them and had no way of communicating with them, they would see us as inferior creatures as well. It is the intrinsic arrogance that comes with being a superior.

It is only that we know ourselves, relatively, that we know exactly how complex we really are.

Have we quantified the extent to where cells do these tasks [adapting, problem-solving, home-construction, etc.]? I don't know if we have or not. With no way to speak to these cells, how do we know that the bio-machine that governs what they do is not sentient?

I believe that that is the crux of the argument the article is proposing.

I'll have to have some examples of the ability of single celled organisms to perform intelligent tasks before I can make anything of this.

As far as I know single celled organisms have only ever been seen to react 'impassively' to their surroundings. They're a bundle of chemicals which get knocked around by their environments; there is no central processor to gather all the information together and coordinate an intelligent response. They're no more conscious than plastic bags being battered by the wind, albeit well shaped through four billion years of the evolution of a population of billions.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, this is all very silly then. Everybody knows that neurons sending electrical signals to each other is the basis of mental activity; this has been known for a century or more. All that has been done here is to convert the electrical activity into sound; no new discoveries have been made at all and nothing new has been learnt. Yes, neurons send signals to each other, but that has been known for a very long time; also, it does not make them any more intelligent than, say, a couple of walkie talkies.

True enough. I would think that, being a biologist, he would take such into account. That is why I'm wondering if there is something about that complexity, when quantified, gave him the impression that it was more than just a (to use their term) "stop/go template."

Originally Posted by Xei

I'll have to have some examples of the ability of single celled organisms to perform intelligent tasks before I can make anything of this.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Xei

As far as I know single celled organisms have only ever been seen to react 'impassively' to their surroundings. They're a bundle of chemicals which get knocked around by their environments; there is no central processor to gather all the information together and coordinate an intelligent response. They're no more conscious than plastic bags being battered by the wind, albeit well shaped through four billion years of the evolution of a population of billions.

But that falls back on the above: To what extent do single-celled organisms actually perform these tasks? I, personally, don't know. But, if it is on a level that is more than your plastic bag analogy, I'd believe it warrants further research, don't you?

On a side note:
I tend to think that the scientific community gets complacent too easily. When we [humans/scientists] think something has been given a plausible explanation, we are too entertain any opposing ideas unless they are proven at the time of conception.

[Edit:

Originally Posted by Wiki Entry on "Gene Regulatory Network"

Genes have sometimes been regarded as nodes in a network, with inputs being proteins such as transcription factors, and outputs being the level of gene expression. The node itself performs a function, and the operation of these functions have been interpreted as performing a kind of information processing within cell and determine cellular behaviour.

So, does this imply that there is some level of processing going on, within a cell? How does such a mechanism come into being? How does a cell "regulate" itself if it is not capable of processing information, to some degree?]

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I think you're too quick to pass a priori judgement on something that could obviously be explained much more in depth. I find the article fascinating because it presents the idea that cells are more complex than we originally thought. Since it's a new idea, it warrants more research. You're stuck in the preconceived notion that cells can't be anymore complex than we originally thought them to be (which, in itself, is very unscientific), unwilling to entertain the possibility - even in light of new (although seemingly inconclusive) evidence that they may be.

When I have time, I'll see if I can find any more information on it.

Look at ants.

In a colony, they can do some pretty amazing things-- i.e. bulding intricate mounds, waging wars, coordinating the whole nest, etc.

But ants themselves aren't very smart, or powerful. On their own, they can't really do anything.

Consciousness, and complex behaviours are just the result of the billions of cells that compose your body working together. We already knew that Neurons passed information between each other. It's called synapses, and I don't doubt that if you adjust the sound made by a synapses-- or anything, for that matter-- then you would be able to hear it. Big deal. This in no way proves that cells are conscious. ESPECIALLY specialized cells that depend on other cells who depend on other cells, etc. for survival. Like I said, consciousness is an emergent property. You take a skin cell from your skin, it dies.

But that falls back on the above: To what extent do single-celled organisms actually perform these tasks? I, personally, don't know. But, if it is on a level that is more than your plastic bag analogy, I'd believe it warrants further research, don't you?

On a side note:
I tend to think that the scientific community gets complacent too easily. When we [humans/scientists] think something has been given a plausible explanation, we are too entertain any opposing ideas unless they are proven at the time of conception.

I think you've missed the point of science. You can't jsut wave a new idea around and get instant acceptance. That's not science.

What do you mean "To what extent?"?

They can't actively respond to their environment because they don't have the ability of foresight or thinking ahead. They can only react to the now.

That sounds just like a mathematical model to me. I think what makes an organism 'intelligent' is if there is some sort of information processing unit which gathers all inputs together and makes desicions based on the sum of those outputs. There is no such system in single celled organisms; they are just lumps of matter shaped by an entirely Darwinian process.

And of course, if a single celled organism were to ever show itself to be more than the above, then yes, that would warrant a great deal of investigation; but you have to observe it happening first, which has not happened to my knowledge.

I do think that consciousness is a great mystery, but I don't think that any of this is a part of it...

Well, consciousness is also dependent on memory. If you can't think back, then you can't think ahead, so you can't make decisions, and cannot be conscious.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Look at ants.

That's a good point.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

I think you've missed the point of science.

Not at all. Acceptance and investigation are not synonymous. After all this time, after all our searching, the origin of consciousness is still a mystery, is it not? There are countless theories out there, true, but has one actually gained acceptance? I've never even come close to implying that anybody that just comes up with a theory should automatically have said theory accepted as truth. I think that someone actually dives in and tries to find out such things, is what's important. Particularly, when there are observable parallels that, at face value, could appear to be substantial.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

What do you mean "To what extent?"?

Sorry. I mean "with what level of complexity?".

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

They can't actively respond to their environment because they don't have the ability of foresight or thinking ahead. They can only react to the now.

Hmm. That's true, I think.

Originally Posted by Xei

That sounds just like a mathematical model to me. I think what makes an organism 'intelligent' is if there is some sort of information processing unit which gathers all inputs together and makes desicions based on the sum of those outputs. There is no such system in single celled organisms; they are just lumps of matter shaped by an entirely Darwinian process.

Fair enough. Roxxor's ant example was actually pretty pertinent. I remember reading about army ants, and how a colony was often referred to as a single-organism. It does say a lot about how something is only as good as the sum of its parts, and how, without the whole, even an individual "cell" (part) is pretty much useless. It's hard for me to imagine an organism as (relatively) complex as an ant without some degree of sentience, especially after seeing even the individuals do amazing things, on their own, but I can at least understand why the conclusion is that they don't.

Originally Posted by Xei

And of course, if a single celled organism were to ever show itself to be more than the above, then yes, that would warrant a great deal of investigation; but you have to observe it happening first, which has not happened to my knowledge.

I think that all boils down to, again, how complex the actions of single-celled organisms actually are. Just the fact that they do the things listed is (IMHO) cause to ponder over whether or not they are somehow sentient. If I had the means, personally, it would probably be something I would try to investigate myself. BUT, I do understand how inefficient it would be, if the scientific community took the time and resources to entertain every interesting idea. That much, I can't argue with.

Originally Posted by Xei

I do think that consciousness is a great mystery, but I don't think that any of this is a part of it...

Fair enough.

[Edit:

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

Well, consciousness is also dependent on memory. If you can't think back, then you can't think ahead, so you can't make decisions, and cannot be conscious.

But, then, how does evolution happen? Information is stored and carried, even in single-celled organisms, to some degree. Of course, it's not on our level, but it galvanizes adaptation, just as ours does, no? Just very, very simplistically, and over a longer period of time?

But that falls back on the above: To what extent do single-celled organisms actually perform these tasks? I, personally, don't know.

Well then is a virus conciouss or have logic? It moves about and finds a cell and gets into the parts of the body where it can duplicate and tricks the mitochondria and screws with enzymes and inflitrates the nucleus and reproduces. Does that make it aware of what it's doing? No. It's an inanimate object working entirly off of chemical/mechanical reactions. So the fact that cells do seemingly complex things isn't an argument in itself at all.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's a good point.



Not at all. Acceptance and investigation are not synonymous. After all this time, after all our searching, the origin of consciousness is still a mystery, is it not? There are countless theories out there, true, but has one actually gained acceptance? I've never even come close to implying that anybody that just comes up with a theory should automatically have said theory accepted as truth. I think that someone actually dives in and tries to find out such things, is what's important. Particularly, when there are observable parallels that, at face value, could appear to be substantial.



Sorry. I mean "with what level of complexity?".



Hmm. That's true, I think.



Fair enough. Roxxor's ant example was actually pretty pertinent. I remember reading about army ants, and how a colony was often referred to as a single-organism. It does say a lot about how something is only as good as the sum of its parts, and how, without the whole, even an individual "cell" (part) is pretty much useless. It's hard for me to imagine an organism as (relatively) complex as an ant without some degree of sentience, especially after seeing even the individuals do amazing things, on their own, but I can at least understand why the conclusion is that they don't.



I think that all boils down to, again, how complex the actions of single-celled organisms actually are. Just the fact that they do the things listed is (IMHO) cause to ponder over whether or not they are somehow sentient. If I had the means, personally, it would probably be something I would try to investigate myself. BUT, I do understand how inefficient it would be, if the scientific community took the time and resources to entertain every interesting idea. That much, I can't argue with.



Fair enough.

[Edit:



But, then, how does evolution happen? Information is stored and carried, even in single-celled organisms, to some degree. Of course, it's not on our level, but it galvanizes adaptation, just as ours does, no? Just very, very simplistically, and over a longer period of time?

I had this huge reply all typed up, but my browser crashed and I lost it. I'll retype it later

I think that all boils down to, again, how complex the actions of single-celled organisms actually are. Just the fact that they do the things listed is (IMHO) cause to ponder over whether or not they are somehow sentient. If I had the means, personally, it would probably be something I would try to investigate myself. BUT, I do understand how inefficient it would be, if the scientific community took the time and resources to entertain every interesting idea. That much, I can't argue with.

By things listed, do you mean things like build homes etcetera? 'Cause personally I've never actually heard of single celled cells doing anything like that and have a suspicion that it's just something someone made up.

Originally Posted by spockman

Well then is a virus conciouss or have logic? It moves about and finds a cell and gets into the parts of the body where it can duplicate and tricks the mitochondria and screws with enzymes and inflitrates the nucleus and reproduces. Does that make it aware of what it's doing? No. It's an inanimate object working entirly off of chemical/mechanical reactions. So the fact that cells do seemingly complex things isn't an argument in itself at all.

Hmm. I really don't know. I don't believe they are, so I can see your point.

Originally Posted by A Roxxor

I had this huge reply all typed up, but my browser crashed and I lost it. I'll retype it later

Shitty. Hate when that happens. WordPad FTW!

Originally Posted by Xei

By things listed, do you mean things like build homes etcetera? 'Cause personally I've never actually heard of single celled cells doing anything like that and have a suspicion that it's just something someone made up.

Actually, yeah, let me rephrase that to say that "IF the statement that they [do the things listed] is a fact would be cause to ponder over whether or not they are somehow sentient," because I personally don't know that they do all those things either.

Originally Posted by Xei

...let me get this right, O. The argument is this:

Individual neurons make sounds. Therefore, individual neurons are conscious.

...whaaaaaaat?

What on Earth is this page about? There's no information about anything at all. I'm guessing they've reformatted some electrical signals into a sound wave; so what?? So my fridge is conscious now?

Unless I've gotten the wrong end of the stick here, this is really one of the silliest things I've ever seen and an embarassment to that blogger and the 'scientist'.

Nice post. Sums up what I thought too.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, this is all very silly then. Everybody knows that neurons sending electrical signals to each other is the basis of mental activity; this has been known for a century or more. All that has been done here is to convert the electrical activity into sound; no new discoveries have been made at all and nothing new has been learnt. Yes, neurons send signals to each other, but that has been known for a very long time; also, it does not make them any more intelligent than, say, a couple of walkie talkies.

The article is not talking about electrical signals, it is talking about ultrasonic waves put into an audible frequency. It is sound already, just sounds so high pitched that we can't hear it.

Source?

I heard this on Radio 4 actually and I'm pretty sure it confirmed that it was just the electronic signals converted to sound...

But really this is a very very poor piece of reporting on behalf of the BBC. I've got no idea what they're on about.

Somewhat related article in New Scientist, for those who are interested.

Originally Posted by Comments section

Neurons fire in an information-carrying fashion. Um. Hasn't this been known for quite some time now?

This.

Also, here's a little more information about the conductor of the initial experiment:

Brian J. Ford

OMG i can hear my cells talking!! they are saying...."Get ready my cell minions, we will overtake this bastard, unleash the VIIRUUUUSHHHH"

ahhhhhhh uuuurhghghghghghrh

By the way that is fucking awesome!!

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The article is not talking about electrical signals, it is talking about ultrasonic waves put into an audible frequency. It is sound already, just sounds so high pitched that we can't hear it.

No, cells do not give off any form of sound. They communicate via electrical signals, and in this case, the signals were converted into sound.

The point of this article ( and 'experiment') was to anthropomorphise the cells by converting their communication into something we could relate to. In doing this, it was possible to convince laymen through false logic that cells may be sentient - "cells also communicate with sound, therefore they may also be conscious".

As was mentioned earlier, this article brings nothing new to cell theory.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Fascinating article.

Link

I love you for finding this.