Fascinating article. :shock:
Link
Printable View
Fascinating article. :shock:
Link
lol. It reminds me of the awesomely coloured space photographs. Like nebulas with insanely awesome colours. But that is just what you get if you translate infra-red and ultraviolet, or even radiowaves, invisible-to-the-eye stuff, into nice bright colours to get a shiny 'photograph' of a nebula or something. In truth, if you look at nebulas, they aren't as cool as nasa shows you sometimes.
Same here. Cells don't actually make sounds. Sure, they communicate, but we already knew that. The guy just took some electronic signals given off by cells and changed it onto sound. Maybe it gives you some sort of intuitive 'respect' for cells, but I don't see what is so special.
That the article actually insinuates individual cells have the intentionality to be able to 'chat' is just plain unscientific, and extremely silly, to be honest. Don't project your capacity of thought onto some tiny cells that just give off certain signals under certain inputs.
It's interesting. But if I heard a human speaking like that I'd shit a brick.
I don't know why, but that scared the shit out of me.
HOLY SHIT!!! :thumbup: Good find.
That makes it two of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by Good as Gold
I don't quite think its the same. The frequency was changed to quantify the sound. They were already making the "noise," just not at a level audible to us. For you to say he simply made the simple, electrical impulse into a sound doesn't quite seem to be what the article implies. Not to say you're wrong, but I didn't gather that much from the article alone. Furthermore, I don't think the article implied that he was projecting our capacity of thought onto the cells, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
ohhh man!! I will never look at microbes the same...they sound so cute! like a pac man video game!
science wants us to believe in some funny things
they don't believe in a higher power controlling the beauty of nature. thats fine and dandy really!! but neither do they believe that plants or any other lower life forms have any sort of consciousness
they are just........rocks...rocks that swim. rocks that grow. rocks that eat and rocks that reproduce. UNCONSCIOUS, NONCONSCIOUS living things.
I'm having a hard time understanding why microbes would form themselves into the first animals, entirely accidentally since there was no thought, no motive, no intent, no desire no goal TO FORM TO BEGIN WITH. It was a completely unconscious accidental process right??? Right??? I mean since the basic cell can't think, THEY DIDN'T MEAN to join together and create complex animals? It was a magical unconscious random processof the math lord? right?
I am not buying this idea that there is no conscious process in the origin/history of life! If you look at the whole picture, and if you look at the basic picture, you still have LIVING CELLS in every living organism. You still living cells influencing even the human being, into eating certain foods, into having sex, or this or that against our will, all for the sake of this giant massive community of what...of what???
CELLS
the human body IS a giant community of cells all working together to keep this community going. AGAINST YOUR WILL. Why against your will? Slit your wrist, it's already trying to undo your damage. It doesn't give a damn if you want to die. It will fight for its communal life. and..I'm supposed to believe, this amazing body is the result of an entirely unconscious accidental process of nature?
illogical if you ask me
...........
you know once upon a time science said the same thing about plants. plants are just mindless rocks that grow green. well, modern studies are proving this age old idea WRONG. plants, as it turns out, are actually self aware.
how does a programmer get a mindless robot to start forming communities for a greater cause? he programs it too :D
so pick your poison
either a creator told these mindless cells 'form'. or the basic life form isn't a mindless robot after all. either way, the history of life is entirely illogical without consciousness being the drive behind it.
************************
I think part of the problem why we struggle so much with the idea that something without a brain can have any sort of self awareness, is because of the uniqueness of our consciousness
putting the belief of the soul aside, our consciousness is taking place in the brain. but the interesting thing is, our consciousness is NOT the brain. our consciousness IS the ME, IS the I. That 'I' is NOT the arm. That 'I' is NOT the legs, its not any body part. It's NOT the brain!!
WHAT IS THE 'I' THEN? What is your consciousness then if it is not any organ, or any body part? Its the ghost in the machine. Our consciousness is sooo detached from our body, if we could put our brains in a robot body, you would still be you.
So, we have this 'I'. And we live by this 'I'. And this 'I' is so important, its hard to imagine consciousness without a singular, identifiable 'I'.
Well the funny thing is, it turns out the human mind doesn't have a singular, easily, identifiable 'I'. It turns out the human mind has a DUAL consciousness. And we interact with this OTHER consciousness every night. The subconscious!!
Now again, this idea of consciousness being anything other than 'I' is other worldly and hard to grasp. So people automatically say "Well the subconscious is like a computer storing data. Thats all. Its not really conscious"
of course you would say its not really conscious, thats creepy. thats weird. to think about two minds in one body.
heres a question. have you ever held a conversation with a dream character?? yeah. a computer storing data can't do that. the subconscious creates the dream world. it runs it. it is the voice behind every dream character, and lets be honest here. its superior when it comes to the imagination!!
it is not a 'mindless' storing data computer as people like to view it just to make themselves more comfortable.
the subconscious is a real consciousness, it is a apart of 'you', just not the Conscious You, as you recognize it.
but the interesting thing about the subconsciousness is, it is not an 'I' consciousness as we understand. The subconscious is much closer to the whole body and the body's needs and urges. Its more primal, more instinctual and closer to our dna programming. Because it doesn't have an 'I' identity, it doesn't necessarily have the individual aspirations that the Conscious You has. It lives in the memories you give it. It does not dream.
But it does have desires. It has things it hates. Things its addicted to.
The Conscious You says "I'm going to quit smoking!" The subconscious just laughs and says "Try me!"
the point is, we have a dual nature that most people don't recognize. the point is, even our own mind shows us consciousness isn't always an 'I'
The brain is an amazing thing. . yet what is it basically?
Cells.
Cells organized in a community of cells.
Cells organized in a community of cells communicating information!!!
The sum of this information leads to consciousness as we understand it****************
As it turns out. . . Plants have cells. These cells are extremely specialized and well organized. . .They communicate information!!!!! Why are we still looking for a 'brain'? Its right there under our noses.
No, but I think that is what happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Seriously, communication doesn't make cells any less simplistic little 'robots' that just act by natural laws. The way some of you people are looking at this, is as if the cells understand what their 'bleep bleep' means. They simply have no clue what they are doing, at least not any more than my calculator that says bleep-bleep when I press it's buttons or try to divide by zero. Seriously, I don't see how you guys can get all worked up over a 200-word article that sheds no new light on how cells works.
I hope you guys don't think cells are anything more then simple, (physical) law-bound tiny blobs. Seriously, ask a cell-biologist if you have to.
-
edit:
juroara: I mean this, stop writing, get off your ass, go to the library, and read some books about evolution. You just don't get it.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
When I have time, I'll see if I can find any more information on it.
I think calculators have feelings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Lets debate that. Lets really get into it and research it, because it sounds totally reasonable with the knowledge we have about calculators, not like we know how calculators work. Not like we know that calculators do things because they are hard-wired to do so. Nooo, they arn't hard-wired, lets ignore that. It's way more fun to think calculators Think and Dream and have Feeeeeeelings! :oops::oops::oops:
It's as proper science as postulating cells think. And gosh, are you good at science.
/end sarcasm.
Seriously, no actual scientist believes cells think on one guy creating some sound based on a few electrical impulses that can be found in a calculator. We know for a great great deal how cells work. We also know to great length how brains work, at least we certainly know how complex they have to be to be concious. Cells are shit-ass simple, evolved to preform certain tasks, conciousness doesn't just jump out of there.
Seriously, I didn't know you were one of those emotional people too that believes things simply on grounds of if sounding nice, Orio.
Get a nice big book about cell biology and a nice big book about neuroscience and conciousness people, and hit yourself on the head with it.
If you can't realize why your sarcastic analogy is invalid (comparing the processes of a calculator to that of organic cells), then you pretty much forfeit all chances of sounding like you actually know what you're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
If I "believed" it, I wouldn't be obviously pushing for more research before committing to the theory, now would I? Your trying to bait me away from the idea with insulting rhetoric does nothing to make me any less interested in the idea. Whether or not I'm so (gosh) good at science means nothing. I'm at least willing to dig further into the new information to find out it's validity, rather than dismiss something new on a priori reasoning, regardless of how little I actually know about such new information.
But, to each his own. I'll check out s'more on the subject later.
So, if cells were proven to be conscious, what would the rest of us do about it? Ugh, imagine the mess people like vegans would get us into.
Edit: Ah just read this comment on the page.. I think it's a good one.
"No disrespect to the research, but I fail to see how that sound denotes intelligence.
After all, wind chimes make a varied and complex noise in response to external stimulus but we don't see this as evidence of problem solving behaviour."
Congratulations, you have no understanding of the definition of both life and rocks. Or chemistry, evolution, consciousness, sentience, sapience, abiogenesis, replication, biology, and countless other scientific fieldsQuote:
they are just........rocks...rocks that swim. rocks that grow. rocks that eat and rocks that reproduce. UNCONSCIOUS, NONCONSCIOUS living things.
Please look up the following:
Rocks
Life
Chemistry
Biology
Evolution
Intelligence (you seem to lack it)
False dichotomy based on extreme ignorance, therefore invalid.Quote:
either a creator told these mindless cells 'form'. or the basic life form isn't a mindless robot after all. either way, the history of life is entirely illogical without consciousness being the drive behind it.
Have you ever been able to perform billions of mathematical calculations per second with extremely large numbers? Why no, you can't!Quote:
have you ever held a conversation with a dream character?? yeah. a computer storing data can't do that.
*shock*
It's almost as if the human brain, and computers are good at different things. OH MY GOD, what a really strange idea!
It is almost possible. Well I know the second part is, the calculations with extremely large numbers. I doubt the billions per second part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Photolysis
Can you tell me why communicating, self-replicating robots are different from cells in this aspect? ('Life' isn't a metaphysical property that streams though matter that happened to evolve.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
I should make a note: October 21th, 2033: Tell Oneironaut nothing happened in the field of 'talking cells' because it was a silly idea in the first place. :)Quote:
But, to each his own. I'll check out s'more on the subject later.
The article makes some bold claims. Unfortunately, this online reporter's interpretation and summary of the research is too watered down to allow for a meaningful evaluation of those claims. No doubt the original author was more conservative in his conclusions. If I was more interested (I'm not), I would seek out the original journal article and hear it straight from the horse's mouth. As I understand it currently, I fail to see the novelty of the finding.
How did this guy record the sound neurons make?
I'm interested in your opinion of this alleged experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Full ArticleQuote:
A few years later a much more sophisticated and improved version of this proposal was performed by a research group at the University of Milan, utilizing neurons derived from the same human neural stem cells, cultured on microelectrode arrays (MEAs) contained in 2 cm dia basins inside Faraday cages, utilizing low energy lasers to stimulate the neurons (Pizzi et al, 2004a; 2004b; 2005). For the purposes of their experiments, they usually have 2 of these neuronal basins separated by 20 cm or more. The voltages in these neuronal basins prior to laser stimulation are 5 mV peak to peak. Laser stimulation of just one of the basins at 670 nm, naturally results in an electrical signal being generated by this basin, of a frequency directly related to the frequency of the laser input, which can vary from 0-2,000 Hz and, with a peak to peak amplitude of 20 mV.
There is a normal delay between the time of activation of the laser, its impingement upon the neurons and the resulting electrical signal, of some 300 ms. What they have found most interesting over a period of several years and thousands of laser pulses, is that the separated non-stimulated basin displays simultaneous or correlated electrical signals, although of a reduced amplitude in mV, and that there is a simultaneity or correlation in
the 2 basins frequencies, between 500-2,000 Hz, with a sharp common peak around 900 Hz, implying biological entanglement and nonlocality. Periodograms of the two signals are also about coincident.
They have resorted to every possible technique (as detailed in their papers) to rule out the possibility that this effect might be due to some error in their experimental protocol, in equipment malfunction or some type of human intervention, since this implies nonlocality, even though the 2 neuronal basins are separated by only a few cm. To show you the extent they have gone to, to rule out any possible local or classical explanation, they first start out with just one neuronal basin and 2 control basins, without any neurons in them but, containing either their culture liquid or matrigel. Both basins are inside Faraday cages. They stimulate the main basin containing the human neurons on the MEAs with the laser, and get the usual electrical signal response from it but, there is never any electrical signals or response from either of the two control basins.
I am intrested what it has to do with the orignal article, that implied because you can translate some electric signals from neurons into sound it proves something. That is still a bunch of sillyness. Also I am intrested why you had to bring up this vague experiment, and couldn't just simply answer the question what is really different between cells and self-replicating, commucating robots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
As for the article. Is 'nonlocality' the new, hip, new-age word or something? Anyhow, googling the Authors name gives no serious hits, no well-respected sites on which mr Thaheld appears. All I find is a lot of mentions of him by new-agey folks. Normally, new-agey folks don't really go with the best kinds of science, just look at how they raped quantum-mechanics.Quote:
Even if the experiment was proper, which would be surprising since the reseacher has been completely ignored by everyone but people that really really want to hear that kind of things. Even if it was true, it would still prove little. For one, there is no reason to think Neurons would be the only kind of matter capable of 'nonlocality'.
Lets say either respected universities that have the position to change the scientific community either never did this kind of research, or the research you linked me is obcure for what ever reason, and lets assume because it can not be recreated, since the research was faulty.
I hate to play this card, but things that give you only 10 google hits normally arn't all that groundbreaking, or true, for that matter :)
-
Oh, the premiss that individual cells are special somehow because they make a silly sound (actually, they don't even make a sound), is still completely silly, by the way.
Nothing. It was an aside that I brought up because of your statement that "'Life' isn't a metaphysical property that streams though matter that happened to evolve." I simply wanted your opinion on it, as it pertains to the idea that there may still be much about the microscopic world that we (humans) don't know very much about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
My mistake. I forgot to answer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meuro
The difference is, the self-replicating, communicating robots would be made by us. We would know everything about them because their properties would be created by us. It is different with natural phenomena. We are on the outside looking in, and I feel we sometimes get ahead of ourselves in thinking we have everything figured out.
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
I don't believe that the only papers worth taking into consideration are the ones that make it into the fraternity which is the mainstream scientific community. It does bring his credibility into question, though, so I won't argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
I don't think anyone has proposed that neurons are the only kind of matter capable of non-locality. As per quantum entanglement, electrons may be capable of it and seem to show that they are, quite often.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
Both scenarios are possible. With all of the early paradigms that these kinds of things aren't possible, I would not be surprised at all if respected universities haven't done this kind of research. But, yes, the experiment talked about doesn't have much further information backing it up. I actually thought that there was more substance behind it, when I first read about it a year or so ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
No argument, there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
I still wonder how you can say, with all certainty, that they don't make a sound. A dog whistle "doesn't make a sound" until something catches the sound that it does make, and translates it into a frequency that humans can hear. I don't even know if that's possible but, if it is, then a sound wave frequency, allegedly picked up from a cell, could potentially be manipulated into a frequency humans could hear, which is what the article is proposing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuro
This seems like more of an art installation than scientific research. It is neat, makes you think, but does not really show us anything new about the way the world works.
And the track sounds like two elves playing penis ping-pong inside a giant balloon.
Haha. I'm not even going to ask how you're possibly able to make that comparison, RB! :chuckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by Robot_Butler
Hmm... It is certainly interesting. But I think he makes assumptions about the findings like there is only one way to interpret the evidence. There's not. I don't know that it means they 'think and process and problem solve' as much as they have programmed instictual responses to certain action. Being able to interpret a message from another cell only means that that is one of the responses.
Cells have only certain types of memories interpreted by mitochondria, not the nucleus which controls the cell. So if the cells 'brain' if you will does not interpret cell memory, than how can it recall and think as is suggested?
Its not the same as the calculator. The calculator makes the sound for your benefit, so it doesn't need to know what it means. The cells are communicating with other cells. In all likelyhood, the sounds definitely do have meaning to the cells.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
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.)Quote:
Originally posted by Xaqaria Its not the same as the calculator. The calculator makes the sound for your benefit, so it doesn't need to know what it means. The cells are communicating with other cells. In all likelyhood, the sounds definitely do have meaning to the cells.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
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'.
I don't quite interpret it that way. What I got was:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by article
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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:
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?]Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki Entry on "Gene Regulatory Network"
Look at ants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
That's a good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Sorry. I mean "with what level of complexity?".Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
Hmm. That's true, I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Fair enough. :cheers:Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
[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?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
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.Quote:
But that falls back on the above: To what extent do single-celled organisms actually perform these tasks? I, personally, don't know.
I had this huge reply all typed up, but my browser crashed and I lost it. I'll retype it later :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
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.Quote:
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.
Hmm. I really don't know. I don't believe they are, so I can see your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
Shitty. Hate when that happens. WordPad FTW!Quote:
Originally Posted by A Roxxor
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Nice post. Sums up what I thought too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
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.
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by Comments section
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!!
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
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.
I love you for finding this. :bowdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
that sound was pretty scary to come from cells O.o
Millions of cells making that sound in your body O.o
But same time funny :P
What an awesome post, and quite the theory. True or not makes you think. And entirely within the realms of possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by juroara
Scientists have even suggested that we gather the genetic coding of our species and having it transferred into space into a habitable area and then spreading said genetic data which has been programmed similar to a nano bot if you will and rebuild the human species from scratch.
All of which would be entirely possible given the right technology was available, which eventually.... it will be.
As far as I can see it was a huge pile of crap and a large quantity of complete lies.
Science is the most powerful method we possess for discovering truth. Science has given us fascinating insights into the nature of reality. Science does not 'want' anybody to believe anything; the only agenda the scientific method has is the truth, and if you use the scientific method properly, the truth is the only thing you can possibly get.
If you doubt this then could you please turn off your computer and never again use an electronic device, drive in a vehicle, or accept medical treatment. Thanks.