Thread: The secrets of intelligence lie within a single cell

I agree with Zaqaria.

After all, we are just cells ourselves.

Our specific collection of cells is what we call 'human'.

There's no reason for cells to suddenly become somehow more intelligent when they are combined. They are just communicating with each other, that's all. They are still, individually, not 'intelligent'.

It's like if you get a group of mentally retarded people in a room, they aren't going to become smarter, and it's unlikely that they would create something that they couldn't have alone. Unless you suggest that individual cells can learn from each other.

Groups are smarter than individuals. The individuals themselves do not become smarter, but a group is capable of making better decisions than any one individual if they cooperate effectively.

The individuals themselves do not become smarter, but a group is capable of making better decisions than any one individual if they cooperate effectively.

[Becoming smarter] and [making better decisions] are two different things. They don't exactly relate to each other in your statement. Individuals can and do become smarter. Groups can likewise remain in a state of intellectual stagnation. The lower classes of industrial societies are an example of this.

I am not refuting that groups may be superior decision makers than individuals.. But everything is situational. You can have an exceptionally "gifted" individual in the face of an incompetent group of people, or the reverse. Situational.

Groups will at least accomplish large projects faster. More hands (or brains) for more work. The quality of the thought going into it however is a different matter.

My post should be taken in the context of Tommo's post, I mean individuals do not get smarter when they become part of a group, and the link outlines the conditions that need to be present in order for a group to be more effective at decision making than the individuals that make it up.

Okie dokie.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why not? Math, just like everything else we do, is governed by a set of defined or perceived rules; and the goal is always the same, to get "the answer". The answer is the thing that intelligence optimizes towards.

If math is like anything else, you shouldn't have any problems finding examples of cells doing abstract math.
But you can't find cellular equivalent of, for example, reductio ad absurdum. Math doesn't depend on external stimuli.

Originally Posted by tommo

There's no reason for cells to suddenly become somehow more intelligent when they are combined.

I never said that cells become more intelligent. I said that the network of cells is more intelligent than individual cells. And not just quantitatively more intelligent, there's a qualitative difference. Networks can do things individual cells can't.

Originally Posted by tommo

They are just communicating with each other, that's all. They are still, individually, not 'intelligent'.

Cells that "just communicate" is what our brains are. Again, read previous posts again and you will see that no one in this thread mentioned anything about cells becoming more intelligent individually.

Originally Posted by tommo

It's like if you get a group of mentally retarded people in a room, they aren't going to become smarter, and it's unlikely that they would create something that they couldn't have alone.

That's a really bad analogy. No one is claiming that a group of mentally retarded people is an intelligent system.

Can an ant colony do something individual ants can't do on their own? Yes
Can a flock of birds do something an individual birds can't do on their own? Yes
Can a swarm of bacteria do something individual cells can't do on their own? Yes
Can a brain do something that neural cells can't do on their own? Yes
Can a group of scientists do something an individual scientist can't do on it's own? Yes.

Originally Posted by tommo

Unless you suggest that individual cells can learn from each other.

I'm suggesting that they can. I'm also suggesting that this is called synaptic plasticity and that it's a big part of how brains work.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

If math is like anything else, you shouldn't have any problems finding examples of cells doing abstract math.
But you can't find cellular equivalent of, for example, reductio ad absurdum. Math doesn't depend on external stimuli.

Huh? You wouldn't know what math is without external stimuli, so it is definitely dependent. I don't know why you think cells not being able to do abstract math is some sort of linch-pin argument; I have already said that cells are not as intelligent as humans, and the concept of math is dependent on the way we process information and so it is meaningless to a cell anyway. Can you make a perfect copy of yourself? No? Then you must not be as intelligent as a cell...

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Cells that "just communicate" is what our brains are. Again, read previous posts again and you will see that no one in this thread mentioned anything about cells becoming more intelligent individually.

Ok I kind of forgot my point and I've written it in a fairly incoherent way. It was convoluted.
But, that is exactly what I said. We are just a collection of cells.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

That's a really bad analogy. No one is claiming that a group of mentally retarded people is an intelligent system.

Um, yes but I was saying that retarded people could be equivalent to one brain cell.
LMAO that sounds mean, but metaphorically speaking.
They don't become smarter when thy get in a group. I mean the GROUP doesn't get smarter.
They might appear smarter, because they are interacting, but they are still not smarter even collectively.

We only appear smarter than single cells because we are just a group of cells working together.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

I'm suggesting that they can. I'm also suggesting that this is called synaptic plasticity and that it's a big part of how brains work.

Ok this might be where my argument falls through. Regions of the brain can take on tasks when the 'proper' region is unable to. But also nobody really knows why. It might not be any sort of learning.
Nobody knows how brain cells even operate. So I am unable to argue this any further.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You wouldn't know what math is without external stimuli, so it is definitely dependent.

You train your neural network. After a while it becomes capable of reasoning things that have nothing to do with original training data or the external world. This is something that comes out of the entire network, it can never be reduced to what single cells do. Everything a human brain is capable of is an emergent property of the network, it comes out of cellular interaction, yet it cannot be studied on the level of individual cells. Just like cellular behavior is studied on the level of molecular networks, and not on the level of individual molecules.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Can you make a perfect copy of yourself? No? Then you must not be as intelligent as a cell...

Cells don't make perfect copies of themselves.
Besides, I don't see how being able to copy something is a measure of intelligence.

Originally Posted by tommo

Um, yes but I was saying that retarded people could be equivalent to one brain cell.
LMAO that sounds mean, but metaphorically speaking.
They don't become smarter when thy get in a group. I mean the GROUP doesn't get smarter.
They might appear smarter, because they are interacting, but they are still not smarter even collectively.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Brains are clearly "smarter" than single neurons.

Originally Posted by tommo

We only appear smarter than single cells because we are just a group of cells working together.

I disagree. We are "smarter" because we are a highly organized network of cells.

Originally Posted by tommo

Regions of the brain can take on tasks when the 'proper' region is unable to. But also nobody really knows why. It might not be any sort of learning.

It's not just that. Every neuron remodels the way it interacts with other neurons based on signals it gets from other neurons. This is learning

Originally Posted by tommo

Nobody knows how brain cells even operate.

It's far from being completely understood, but they're not black boxes to us.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Why not? Math, just like everything else we do, is governed by a set of defined or perceived rules; and the goal is always the same, to get "the answer". The answer is the thing that intelligence optimizes towards.

Not true.

Humans are curious -- it's an evolutionary advantage. The want for an "answer" (aka a model which a human uses to simulate and predict the ambient around him) is purely emotional. Humans are, however, given "tools", as in, cognitive tools, which they use in order to obtain what their emotions compel them to. Those tools are what we call "intelligence". Intelligence only optimizes towards more evolutionary advantage.

Logic is derived from the idea that something cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time. If this is itself correct, we'll never know. But we do know that all our logical postulations are based on this hypothesis.

"Intelligence" means cognitive functions, to science. Cells can become more effective at doing something, but not more intelligent, as the concept of "intelligence" is only defined for the level of organs.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. Brains are clearly "smarter" than single neurons.

I'm saying they aren't. They are just neurons working together.
More specifically, what makes a network of neurons smart?
You can't really say.
Don't answer with, they can do maths and think of abstract ideas etc. etc.
Why is that smart?
What makes that smarter than a single neuron being able to fire electrical impulses and grow extra dendrites and connect to other neurons?
Do you understand what I'm saying now?
I mean, that's all that the cells are doing. And when they are together, that is still all that they are doing.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

I disagree. We are "smarter" because we are a highly organized network of cells.

I think we are awesome because we have arms and legs.
In other words, this sentence doesn't mean anything.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

It's not just that. Every neuron remodels the way it interacts with other neurons based on signals it gets from other neurons. This is learning

That's basically what I said, just in slightly more detail.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

It's far from being completely understood, but they're not black boxes to us.

No, but we still know shit all.

Originally Posted by Kromoh

Logic is derived from the idea that something cannot be correct and incorrect at the same time. If this is itself correct, we'll never know. But we do know that all our logical postulations are based on this hypothesis.

If Quantum physics is correct, something can be right and wrong at the same time. But that whole field DOES defy logic. I'm not sure what you're really arguing here tbh but just thought I'd add that in lol

Originally Posted by tommo

I'm saying they aren't. They are just neurons working together.
More specifically, what makes a network of neurons smart?
You can't really say.
Don't answer with, they can do maths and think of abstract ideas etc. etc.
Why is that smart?
What makes that smarter than a single neuron being able to fire electrical impulses and grow extra dendrites and connect to other neurons?

Can you define "smart" or "intelligent" in a way that doesn't make neural networks "smarter" or more "intelligent" than single cells?

Originally Posted by tommo

Do you understand what I'm saying now?
I mean, that's all that the cells are doing. And when they are together, that is still all that they are doing.

I understand what you are saying, but what you're saying has nothing to do with this thread or my argument. Again, I never said that cells are smarter when they are in networks. I said that networks are "smarter" than cells.

Originally Posted by tommo

That's basically what I said, just in slightly more detail.

No, we said different things. You mentioned one part of brain being damaged and the other part of brain assuming its function.
I said that every single neuron in the brain adjusts its axons and dendrites according to the signals it gets from other cells - every single cell is learning from the network of cells surrounding it. This is a normal process in the brain development and function, not just a response to a pathological situation.

Originally Posted by tommo

No, but we still know shit all.

We know much more than you think we know.

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

If math is like anything else, you shouldn't have any problems finding examples of cells doing abstract math.

Cells divide. And multiply.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Cells divide. And multiply.

Yeah, biology is the only place where division = multiplication

You still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not gonna repeat it.

Originally Posted by tommo

You still don't understand what I'm saying. I'm not gonna repeat it.

Then ignore that part you think I don't understand and answer my question:
Can you define "smart" or "intelligent" in a way that doesn't make neural networks "smarter" or more "intelligent" than single cells?

Originally Posted by SnakeCharmer

Can you define "smart" or "intelligent" in a way that doesn't make neural networks "smarter" or more "intelligent" than single cells?

Just by looking in the dictionary*(.com) you can find definitions for smart and intelligence that would make cells much smarter (or more intelligent) than the network.

smart
–adjective
7.
quick or prompt in action.

in·tel·li·gent
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment.

A cell is much quicker to decide than an entire network. I, however, would say that networks are definitely more intelligent than single cells. In order to be "more intelligent" though, cells have to have the faculty of intelligence, no matter how small, to even be compared.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

smart
–adjective
7.
quick or prompt in action.

in·tel·li·gent
2. displaying or characterized by quickness of understanding, sound thought, or good judgment.

A cell is much quicker to decide than an entire network.

Even by your definition networks are more intelligent : Cells are orders of magnitude slower than neural networks.
Cellular events are chemical, they are reaction-diffusion systems. Neural activity mostly depends on electric signals being carried along neurons. This is much faster than diffusion.

Compare the time between receiving a signal, computing the response and responding to the signal:
In bacterial cells it takes between a second and a couple of minutes.
In yeasts it takes between couple of seconds and and hour.
In human cells it takes between couple of minutes and up to days.
Neural responses are measured in milliseconds.