Do our cells care?

[DaveC426913]

Do people here understand the difference between living cells and inanimate objects?

Yes. Do you?

The point here is: do you understand the difference between
- a single cell, operating on mere biochemical principles, and
- a fabulously complex mind, replete with billions of neuronal connections, from which arises the emergent property of emotions.

The point we're tying to get across to you is that - in terms of both physical complexity and reactionary complexity - a single cell has more in common with a chunk of ice or a thermostat than with a mind.

You do not have to accept that as face-value. The point here is that the cell is somewhere in between a thermostat (or chunk of ice) and a complex mind with emotions. The onus is on you to show it can be ascribed to have "feelings". Because until you can make that case, it just doesn't.

I suspect you are starting with an unspoken assumption that anything 'living' is somehow imbued with some set of magical properties, akin to a mind, and maybe even some sort of "life force" or "soul".

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus said:



Do people here understand the difference between living cells and inanimate objects?

If you don't think people do, then feel free to express what you see as the difference.

As your question was in response to what I wrote, please be aware that a working thermostat is not an inanimate object but an animate system, that combines physical items along with electricity to produce a result. An inanimate object would be a thermostat that is not switched on, for example. Much like a dead body.

While "life" is somewhat more complex system, and chemical in nature rather than material, it is nonetheless just a combination of atoms, molecules etc, working in response to stimuli according to the laws of physics. Now, I appreciate that "complex" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting in that, but are you trying to assert that "life" has some additional component? that "inaninmate objects" do not have?

Basically, please explain your understanding of the difference between living cells and inanimate objects. There's little point in questioning other people's understanding if you don't share your own.

 

[Concordicus]

Sarkus:

I think I agree with this:

ChatGPT said:

The difference between animate and inanimate objects is primarily based on whether or not the object has life or the capacity for movement and growth on its own.

Animate objects are living entities. They have the characteristics of life, such as the ability to grow, reproduce, and respond to stimuli. This category includes humans, animals, plants, and microorganisms. Animate beings also exhibit movement, metabolism, and other processes that are part of being alive.

Inanimate objects, on the other hand, are non-living. They don’t have the ability to grow, reproduce, or respond autonomously to stimuli. They can be made of living material (like a rock or a chair), but they themselves don’t have life or consciousness. Inanimate objects can still undergo physical changes like weathering, but those changes are not the result of biological processes.

You said:
does a thermostat in anyway qualify as an animate object?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT

No, a thermostat does not qualify as an animate object. Even though it might respond to changes in temperature (which could be seen as a "reaction to stimuli"), it does not meet the key criteria for being animate. A thermostat doesn’t grow, reproduce, or have biological processes like metabolism or cell division, which are hallmarks of living beings.

A thermostat is an inanimate object that is designed to interact with its environment in a functional way—specifically, it regulates temperature—but this is purely mechanical or electronic, not biological. The response to temperature changes is a programmed action, not a living organism's organic response.

 

[Concordicus]

Dave C said:

The point we're tying to get across to you is that - in terms of both physical complexity and reactionary complexity - a single cell has more in common with a chunk of ice or a thermostat than with a mind.

Chat GPT said:

An amoeba has more in common with a human being than with a chunk of ice. While an amoeba is a single-celled organism and humans are multicellular, both are alive, made up of cells, and share certain biological processes like metabolism and reproduction. In contrast, a chunk of ice is an inanimate object—its molecular structure is frozen water, and it doesn’t engage in any biological processes or have the capacity for life.

So, while the complexity between an amoeba and a human is vastly different, both belong to the domain of living organisms, whereas a chunk of ice is purely physical and non-living.

Something suggests that your opinion is not in the mainstream of current thinking.

​

 

[DaveC426913]

Something suggests that your opinion is not in the mainstream of current thinking.

ChatGPT is not mainstream thinking. I put zero stock in what ChatGPT thinks, and you should too. It is designed to tell you want you want to hear.

Regardless, it is up to you to put forth what relevantly and specifically you think it has in common with vastly complex minds that have trillions of connections that ngiht eruslt in caring or otherwise emoting. So far, I haven't heard anything compelling.

A cell cannot see, hear, think, feel pain or make decisions. It has a fixed (though possibly abundant) repertoire of stimuli and outcomes. If you poke it with a stick, it has no "lip" to bite nor "resolve" to power through the pain and live its best life.

 

[(Q)]

I would suspect the regulatory functions (e.g., homeostasis) align more closely with a thermostat’s mechanistic control systems than with the inert structure of ice or the abstract complexity of a mind.

 

[Concordicus]

Q: I think that was addressed above in post 43.

 

[DaveC426913]

Q: I think that was addressed above in post 43.

OK, likewise, being animate does not quaify a cell to have emotions.

I'd like to see your argument, otherwise I'd say this topic has been answered to-death.

 

[Concordicus]

DaveC:

OK, let me restate the OP (did you read it?) in a different way. To the extent that all living cells are imbued with an objective to survive, cells in a multi celled animal have a vested and personal interest (care) in the survival of the animal it is a part of. You seem to be calliing that emotion; I call it pragmatism.

If you are on a ship out in the middle of the ocean, it is in your best interest to do anything and everything in your power to make sure the ship does not sink. Your survival depends on it. So you care whether the ship is seaworthy. In a similar way, your cells care whether you are life-worthy..

What I am seeing in this discussion is people who have a very archaic understanding of the workings and abilities of living cells.

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC:

.To the extent that all living cells are imbued with an objective to survive, cells in a multi celled animal have a vested and personal interest (care) in the survival of the animal it is a part of.

I do not grant that this premise is so, therefore none of the conclusion follows.

More specifically, you have used a bunch of anthropomorphic words: "objective", "vested", "personal", "interest", "care". Once they are removed there's nothing left but articles and prepositions.

And cells are not crew. You can analogize till the cows come home but what youre really doing is inserting your conclusion into your premise.

To-wit: since cells can't think or emote, they can't care, have personal interests, vested or otherwise, and they can't crew boats - even metaphorically.

You seem to be calliing that emotion; I call it pragmatism.

"Care" is what you actually called it, several times now. That's an emotion.

 

[Concordicus]

Medical care.

 

[Pinball1970]

Medical care.

Like insurance?

 

[Concordicus]

This discussion seems have boiled down to a difference between static genetics and dynamic genetics. There is a recent community of geneticists who subscribe to a more dynamic version of living cells than is considered in the neo-Darwin evolutionary synthesis.

One of the leading writers of those promoting the dynamic cell is the aforementioned James A. Shapiro, a professor of microbiology at the University of Chicago’s department of biochemistry and molecular biology.

I am not sure the degree to which people who have been commenting in this thread are familiar with this more dynamic view of cell activity and abilities. I am assuming most here will agree with the mainstream view. As such, I queried ChatGPT to compare the two and throw this comparison into the discussion.

James A. Shapiro, a molecular biologist known for his work on genome structure and function, challenges traditional views of genes and evolution. His ideas are influential in shaping alternative perspectives on genetic function and evolutionary processes. Here’s a comparison of the modern understanding of genes (as described earlier) with Shapiro’s views:
1. Genes as Static vs. Dynamic Entities

Mainstream View: Genes are relatively stable sequences that serve as blueprints for protein synthesis and other functions. Mutations and recombination drive genetic diversity.
Shapiro’s View: Shapiro emphasizes a dynamic genome, arguing that DNA is not static but constantly modified by cellular processes such as transposition, genome rearrangement, and epigenetic changes. He views the genome as an active information system rather than a passive repository of information.

2. Evolutionary Mechanisms

Mainstream View: Evolution primarily occurs through gradual changes, such as random mutations and natural selection, often in a linear and cumulative fashion.
Shapiro’s View: Shapiro proposes the concept of natural genetic engineering, where cells actively modify their genomes in response to environmental stresses. He suggests this process is far more directed and responsive than traditional random mutation-based models.

3. Regulatory Complexity

Mainstream View: Modern genomics acknowledges the complexity of gene regulation, including epigenetic modifications, noncoding RNA, and regulatory networks.
Shapiro’s View: Shapiro places even greater emphasis on the interactive and responsive nature of regulation. He highlights the role of mobile genetic elements (like transposons) in shaping regulatory regions and the genome's capacity to reorganize itself in response to signals.

4. Role of Noncoding DNA

Mainstream View: Noncoding DNA, once dismissed as "junk," is now recognized for its regulatory roles and involvement in chromatin structure and epigenetics.
Shapiro’s View: Shapiro was among the early proponents of acknowledging the importance of noncoding DNA. He views these regions as essential in shaping the genome’s ability to respond dynamically to internal and external inputs.

5. Agency and Cognition in Evolution

Mainstream View: Evolutionary processes are typically seen as non-teleological (not goal-directed), governed by chance mutations and selection.
Shapiro’s View: Shapiro introduces a concept of cellular cognition, where cells act as agents with decision-making capabilities. He argues that cells "read, interpret, and edit" their DNA, which contributes to evolution in a non-random, organized manner.

6. Synthetic Biology and Engineering

Mainstream View: Advances in gene editing tools like CRISPR align with a mechanistic understanding of genes, enabling precise modifications to DNA for therapeutic and experimental purposes.
Shapiro’s View: While not opposed to these tools, Shapiro’s framework would view CRISPR as a reflection of the genome’s intrinsic engineering principles. He would likely emphasize understanding the natural engineering systems cells use to modify their DNA as a complement to synthetic methods.

Key Differences

Randomness vs. Agency: Traditional models rely heavily on random mutations; Shapiro emphasizes an active, problem-solving role of the cell.
Static vs. Dynamic Genome: The mainstream sees genetic changes primarily over long timescales; Shapiro argues that real-time genome editing occurs, especially in response to challenges.
Central Role of Mobile Elements: Shapiro highlights transposable elements as major drivers of evolution and genome reorganization, a less emphasized aspect in standard views.

Implications of Shapiro’s Work

Evolutionary Theory: His ideas challenge the neo-Darwinian synthesis, advocating for a more integrative and dynamic view of genetic change.
Medicine: Understanding cellular responses to genomic stress could influence approaches to cancer, aging, and genetic disorders.
Philosophy of Biology: Shapiro’s emphasis on cellular cognition and agency adds a layer of complexity to discussions about the "purposefulness" in biological systems.

Shapiro does agree with the Darwinian concept of common descent and that all of life has common ancestors. His divergence is, rather, in the mechanisms by which evolutionary changes took place.

 

[Pinball1970]

His divergence is, rather, in the mechanisms by which evolutionary changes took place

This appears to be fringe.

From wiki

"In 2023, evolutionary biologist Erik Svensson commented that "to date, there are few leading evolutionary biologists who have openly embraced the TWE" and it is unlikely that an entire replacement of the modern synthesis will occur as there has been little visibility of such a forthcoming paradigm shift during the past decade."

 

[DaveC426913]

This discussion seems have boiled down to a difference between static genetics and dynamic genetics. There is a recent community of geneticists who subscribe to a more dynamic version of living cells than is considered in the neo-Darwin evolutionary synthesis.

One of the leading writers of those promoting the dynamic cell is the aforementioned James A. Shapiro, a professor of microbiology at the University of Chicago’s department of biochemistry and molecular biology.

I am not sure the degree to which people who have been commenting in this thread are familiar with this more dynamic view of cell activity and abilities. I am assuming most here will agree with the mainstream view.

OK. It would certainly behoove you to bring us up to speed on your thesis about the subject and the backround upon which it lies. If not in the opening post, now is still better late than never.

As such, I queried ChatGPT to compare the two and throw this comparison into the discussion.

Oh. No thanks. ChatGPT is terribly unreliable in making cogent or even fact-based arguments.

If you are using ChatGPT to learn about what faculties cells have that would explain why you have been struggling with laying out your case.

Tell me something: would you be happy if we replied to your posts with ChatGPT-generated regurgitations, instead of our own considered thoughts? At best, we would have made an echo-chamber of ChatGPT regurgitations with varying degrees of nonsense.

 

[C C]

Again we have this misapplication of trying to compare the reaction of an inanimate object to that of a living cell. If your train breaks down, can it fix itself? If a cell breaks down, it can often identify the problem and fix itself. If your computer program breaks down, can it fix itself? If there is a loss of DNA strands in a cell, it can often restore the missing code -- a phenomenon discovered by Barbara McClintock prior to WWII. In both these instances, how does the cell "know" something is wrong and "know" the processes needed to fix it without some level of cognition?

You seem to be trying to conflate rudimentary or essential biological routines with something that instead only contingently falls out of such over time, via sufficient sophisticated development: consciousness, or the concept of "mind" in general (taking into account that space aliens might physically instantiate such differently than brains). The former do not need awareness and knowledge of themselves anymore than the internal, mechanistic components and operations of an ICE automobile does.

Even planet Earth has re-stabilized itself after many geologically and atmospherically traumatic events throughout its long history. Equilibrium doesn't require a mind. You seem to be contending that the cart pulls the horse. It's the fact that mindless, governing structure and processes can exist before mind that incrementally makes the latter possible (eventually).

More to the point, is that the question "Do our cells care?" can be remedied by using words strictly, rather than the feral looseness of ordinary speech.

"Caring" can acquire social context when the feeling stimulates protective actions toward others (looking after the sick, elderly, etc). But that stems from it belonging to a prior psychological (brain dependent) category. And thus applying "caring" to the interactions of plural microscopic life forms that lack sophisticated nervous systems and a psychological ranking is a classification error. Certainly that kind of abuse is alright in casual, everyday conversation where standards are lax. But not in domains or disciplines of linguistic rigor, if "single cells can care" is submitted literally rather than as a figure of speech.

Instead of a higher level word like "caring", more primitive or basic expressions become applicable. Like maybe how individual cells can "act together" or "proceed together" to maintain the functional organization of a human body for decades. Or that cellular slime mold protists can mechanistically respond to a chemical release and aggregate into mobile slugs that grow reproductive stalks.[1]

Those type interactions are not transpiring at the kind of social stratum of "tribal multicellular animals" or especially the "feelings of compassion" (private experiences) corresponding to NCCs or regions of specialized neural tissue.

This is instead the unit level where everything is equivalent to quasi-programmed (by evolution) zombie micro-robots that lack personal thoughts and manifestations of their outer environment (images, sounds, odors, etc). Even if all chemical activities in the universe did internally contain elemental, non-regulated presentations (panphenomenalism), there would be no cognitive-oriented memory system at that level to identify and understand those presentations. (And again, they would be such random, fragmented, and disconnected events that little if any meaning or coherent significance could be ascribed to them, anyway.)

- - - footnote - - -

[1] Slime molds (excerpt): The organisms in this group have a complex life cycle (Figure 2.4.2.1.3) during the course of which they go through unicellular, multicellular, spore producing, and amoeboid stages. Thousands of individual amoebae aggregate into a slimy mass - each cell retaining its identity (unlike plasmodial slime molds). The aggregating cells are attracted to each other by the cyclic AMP (cAMP) that they release when conditions become stressful, such as a depletion in food. Individual amoebae respond to the chemical signal by moving to areas of higher cAMP concentration (chemotaxis), eventually aggregating into a single slug. The slug can respond to moisture and light gradients, navigating to a good spot for spore production. Some cells in the slug contribute to a 2–3-millimeter stalk, drying up and dying in the process. Cells atop the stalk form an asexual fruiting body that contains haploid spores. The spores are disseminated and can germinate if they land in a moist environment.

Dictyosteliida: a cellular slime mold

 

[TheVat]

Splendid post, CC. You touch on the importance of understanding the scientific exploration of the NCCs, and the specialized qualities of multicellular neural tissue - which are lacking in individual cells. Conscious cells that care is an extraordinary claim, verging on mysticism, and calls for the claimant to produce evidence beyond bot quotes and vague allusions to a "dynamic version of living cells..."

If cells were so sentient, why would advanced dementia culminate in death? Couldn't all the rest of the patient's cells intervene compassionately and stop that downward spiral?

 

[Concordicus]

DaveC said:

Oh. No thanks. ChatGPT is terribly unreliable in making cogent or even fact-based arguments.

This is a typical response to a message for which the recipient has no real responsive argument and therefore attacks the messenger.

I agree that if one presents follow up queries at ChatGPT (or probably any AI program), it can eventually be led to start providing what it finally figures out is the desired and respected responses. The AI program is able to "remember" and analyze the continuous exchanges. However, if you terminate the exchange, it terminates the AI ability to "remember." I do not use ChatGPT to learn anything, but rather to find more succinct summations. I have read Shapiro's book and found the ChatGPT representation adequate without being overly technical. The response also accurately seemed to reflect my understanding of the static cell concept.

Wherein, do you disagree with the analysis of the two positions (static v. dynamic cells) that it provided? Francis S. Collins, who headed up the Human Genome Project, also adopts a dynamic cell position as well as common descent. They seem to have moved on from Mendelian genetics.

My thesis that cells, in their own way, "care" is based on the dynamic cell's self-awareness of its circumstances.

Pinball1970 accurately notes that TWE (Third Way Evolution) is a recent paradigm which reminds me of the a recent condensation of Max Plank's obervation of the difficulty of new paradigm's to gain acceptance which says "Old paradigms disappear one funeral at a time."

 

[C C]

[...] If cells were so sentient, why would advanced dementia culminate in death? Couldn't all the rest of the patient's cells intervene compassionately and stop that downward spiral?

Good point. Any morally enlightened "caring" capacity of individual cells would be especially brief for those constituting mayflies. Accordingly, the metaphor of indifferent robots locked in a limited maintenance pattern seems one of the more the fitting options.
_

 

[DaveC426913]

DaveC said:


This is a typical response to a message for which the recipient has no real responsive argument and therefore attacks the messenger.

Whether or not it may be typical, that in no way diminishes the validity of its use in this case.

I've engaged with virtually every post you've made since the start, in good faith, and have taken pains to stay relevant to the crux of the issues.

It would be disingenuous at best to suggest, after a demonstrated history of good faith, that I have no real responsive argument. You are projecting.

The irony, in fact, that it is I who have had to ask you several times to lay out your case, using tools just a little more substantive than flowery metaphors of boats - and the occasional coy two word response - to defend your speculations. And you still haven't.

Instead of actually defending your speculations, you are attempting to chase away or besmirch your critics. You automatically lose.