# I am an eighth grader...

And this excellent NOVA video will give you a general understanding of the mathematical nature of the universe.

Don't get sidetracked by human mathematics. Those are only the symbolic representation of natural mathematics so that we can understand and make use of the mathematical values and relational functions.
Basically, that is what "physics" is all about.

Perhaps not by profession, but intuitively they have mathematical skills, even as they may not know it or developed it.
Many animals have mathematical skills. Triangulation is a mathematical skill. Walking is a mathematical skill.

Pigeons can distinguish 6 from 7.
A robot (of this century) has mathematical skill too, but unlike the pigeon it is not, aware of it.

All recurring patterns are mathematical in essence, if you recognize the pattern you recognize its mathematical nature.

Yes, but only if you are not robot.

You may enjoy this lecture by Max Tegmark about the mathematical nature of nature.

Interressting. Thank you.

Why are some "systems" counscious and other not ?
Because "closed systems" are related to themselves (no counscious)
But "open systems" are related to the parts of themselves.
An open and counscious mind is constituted of many minds.
A free mind is fighting with "himself", with the free parts of himself.

At some point, and at a larger scale, the free debate on a forum open the "mind" and the possibility to contradict one with the other permit to be counscious of what we are dealing with.

A robot (of this century) has mathematical skill too, but unlike the pigeon it is not, aware of it.
As to robots, you may want to check out the new GPT3 AI .

Pigeons can distinguish 6 from 7.
I don't think pigeons can actually count, but they can distinguish "more" from "less", a more rudimentary form of mathematics. Lemurs can do that also (see the NOVA video)
A robot (of this century) has mathematical skills too, but unlike the pigeon, it is not, aware of it.

That is truly debatable. The new GPT3 AI are no longer preprogrammed. They acquire knowledge like people and use references to what they actually know when constructing spontaneous answers to almost all questions. Is that a form of awareness???

I don't think pigeons can actually count, but they can distinguish "more" from "less", a more rudimentary form of mathematics. Lemurs can do that also (see the NOVA video)

This could be some debate : What is real counting ? What is the top known mean to count ?
The fact is that pigeons (and other birds) altought previously tougth (scientists supposed only primates can count) can do better than only distinguish more and less between quantities of similar objects.

To find out, Scarf and his colleagues decided to give the same test to three pigeons. Scarf spent a year training the pigeons to order three sets containing one to three objects, such as a set including one yellow rectangle, two red ovals, and three yellow bars. The sets would appear on a computer screen, and the birds would have to peck at them in the correct, ascending sequence to get a reward of food. "They had to learn that it was the number of items that mattered, not the color or shape," says Scarf.

The pigeons were then asked to place two sets containing between one and nine items in the correct, ascending sequence to see if they understood the basic principle behind ordinal numbers. In their training sessions, the birds had only learned first, second, and third. But they didn't falter when presented with new numbers of shapes, such as five ovals or seven rectangles. The pigeons' scores were far above chance, says Scarf.
https://www.science.org/content/article/no-joke-pigeons-ace-simple-math-test

That is truly debatable. The new GPT3 AI are no longer preprogrammed. They acquire knowledge like people and use references to what they actually know when constructing spontaneous answers to almost all questions. Is that a form of awareness???

No, i dont think intelligence and consciousness are linked.
In my opinion, like previously told, to be conscious you need some multiagent system that can interact with "other".
The "other" can be of 2 kind : The environment and the multiagent system himself.
But this is not enought. You also need a mean that can do the swap from one to another agent within the multiagent system so as to give him priority (difficult to explain what "priority" mean, but this is an analogue to "the being", "to be or not to be") => With this primitiv design you got the first necessary capacity to attein counsciousness : "Attention" (be aware of something particular).

In the brain this is achieved by the synchronisation of portions (with different abilities) of the brain (like if a portion would be an agent in the multiagent system) using "brainwaves".
The network is oscillating, and permit synchronous parts of the brain to interact preferentialy with.

But this is only a conceptual view of the problem.
You can not expect some effectiv consciousness from a "robot" (AIs are actually some kind of robots) because if you have probably consciousness in some kind of multiagent robot designed like previously told, this will not tell you ... how intense the counscious is.

And this is also what matter when we talk about consciousness : his intensity.
You have the same question with "life". At some point some robots or computer programms could be declared "alive", but the intensity of this life is very low.

The fact is that pigeons (and other birds) altought previously tougth (scientists supposed only primates can count) can do better than only distinguish more and less between quantities of similar objects.
Ask yourself, in nature do pigeons need numbers for survival? If not, then they don't know numbers. Evolution creates abilities that are useful for survival . If an ability is not necessary for survival, why should it become selected?

That does not mean pigeons and other animals cannot be taught to recognize specific patterns, such as groups of objects or certain wavelengths. Pigeons may be very good at that as that might help them navigate the earth's magnetic fields and recognize natural geographic contours.

Interestingly, the ability to count at a very fundamental chemical level is already present in bacteria.
"Quorum sensing" is used by bacteria to communicate a variety of "autoinducers" that trigger genetic expressions, such as virulence, but also can help the body in combatting virulence.

Quorum sensing signals
Quorum sensing (QS) is a bacterial cell–cell communication process that involves the production, detection, and response to extracellular signaling molecules called autoinducers (AIs)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543102/#
how intense the conscious is
Mammalian consciousness is indeed intense. But simpler forms of non-self-aware consciousness start at a very early stage in living organisms.

Single-celled organisms already show reactions to exterior pressures and the ability to move, navigate, and learn without a brain or neural network. Organic cells have "memory" and communicate with each other. That ability may have been the cause for the self-organization and evolution of complex cellular organisms.

Ask yourself, in nature do pigeons need numbers for survival? If not, then they don't know numbers. Evolution creates abilities that are useful for survival . If an ability is not necessary for survival, why should it become selected?

Yes.
Thats why civilisation make the difference between an ape and a human.

That does not mean pigeons and other animals cannot be taught to recognize specific patterns, such as groups of objects or certain wavelengths. Pigeons may be very good at that as that might help them navigate the earth's magnetic fields and recognize natural geographic contours.

Pigeons, like any first grade student need to be trained (using the civilisation knowledge) unless they dont care about numbers.

Interestingly, the ability to count at a very fundamental chemical level is already present in bacteria.
"Quorum sensing" is used by bacteria to communicate a variety of "autoinducers" that trigger genetic expressions, such as virulence, but also can help the body in combatting virulence.

Quorum sensing signals
Yes i know the "calculus" bacteria can do.
So do also every natural phenomenon.

Mammalian consciousness is indeed intense. But simpler forms of non-self-aware consciousness start at a very early stage in living organisms.

You are not even wrong.
Everything is in anything.
The question is : For what amount ?

Single-celled organisms already show reactions to exterior pressures and the ability to move, navigate, and learn without a brain or neural network. Organic cells have "memory" and communicate with each other. That ability may have been the cause for the self-organization and evolution of complex cellular organisms.

No.
Consciousness depends on the possibility part of the beeing has to contradict some other part of the "beeing" (the biggest beeing is the entire universe).
If all of the multiagent are synchronised together with no contradiction coming from the world... there is no consciousness anymore.
This is why you are not conscious while you are sleeping.

The consciousness depends not on the synchronisation, but on the ability to not be synchronised.

If you dont contradict, you dont have individuality and therefore no consciousness

Last edited:
Yes.
Thats why civilisation make the difference between an ape and a human.
Not necessarily. The Bonobo chimpanzee is much more civilized than humans. There is no known instance where a Bonobo killed another Bonobo.
Pigeons, like any first grade student need to be trained (using the civilisation knowledge) unless they dont care about numbers.
They don't, their mathematical abilities are instinctual and sufficient for survival.
But they can be trained via the reward system of teaching. See Lemurs experiment.
Yes i know the "calculus" bacteria can do. So do also every natural phenomenon.
It is more like a language which uses chemical words.

I am not sure what you mean by "every natural phenomenon".
You are not even wrong.
In what respect. Don't make wild accusations.
Everything is in anything
What everything is in what anything?
The question is: For what amount?
What amount of what?
No, it won't be ok. Self-organization is a mathematical function but not necessarily conscious. It may just depend on the relational values that are compatible or not.
Consciousness depends on the possibility part of the being has to contradict some other part of the "being" (the biggest being is the entire universe).
I believe you have this backwards. Consciousness allows for contradictory action and choice.
If all of the multiagents are synchronised together with no contradiction coming from the world... there is no consciousness anymore.
What multiagents? And "all" multiagents? Are you talking about Chaos theory?
This is why you are not conscious while you are sleeping.
If I turn my computer does it become completely synchronized with the "world"? If I turn my computer on does it become desynchronized with the world?
The consciousness depends not on the synchronisation, but on the ability to not be synchronised.
If you don't contradict, you don't have individuality and therefore no consciousness
You may want to investigate the difference between consciousness and individuality.

Hive mind

A hive mind or group mind may refer to:

Shared intelligence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hive_mind

There is no brain identical to another. Individuality is a result of evolutionary processes.
The trick is to find synchronicity of mind and that may be generated by the "mirror neural network" in the brain. This allows you to experience another's reality. Also known as "empathy".

Last edited:
Not necessarily. The Bonobo chimpanzee is much more civilized than humans. There is no known instance where a Bonobo killed another Bonobo.

By "civilisation" i meant something that is external to the individual, that is not writen in the individual by the genetic.
Pigeons have no civilisation that permit them to access extended concepts like the humans and the their mathematic.
Without civilisation, the human would nod have very smart concepts regarding numbers... like ape.

Concerning the "good" bonobo i think you mean that "being civilised" is "being good".
But this is not what "civilisation" mean.
But it is what we can also understand of "being civilised".
Those two assertions are not refering to the same concept.

Here, i meant : "The civilisation" (regardless of the fact it is good or not) and not "the civilised good guy".
Furthermore, bonobos yes have some inate behaviours that permit them to release tension when they conflict, but they are not "good guys"...
They can easyly kill a human if they remember a human aggression (and they dont distinguish between "who is faulty" or not : You are a human, you need to be killed... that is simple and this is vengeance).

Some animals, and a little more the ape, have some sort of local civilisation : They can maintain technics and behaviors they "teach" each other (in fact ape never teach any one something, the other are observing and they learn from the observation)

Dicart said:
Pigeons, like any first grade student need to be trained (using the civilisation knowledge) unless they dont care about numbers.
They don't, their mathematical abilities are instinctual and sufficient for survival.
But they can be trained via the reward system of teaching. See Lemurs experiment.

Their abilities depends on their environnment.
Like other ingtelligent beings, they use what they already have ("by instinct", the brain can do something without having to learn or the brain can do something because it is geneticaly predisposed to learn it) .
Here we see that we can extend their abilities to deal with numbers, and i agree to say that (as any ape without civilisation) if no human or an envionnemental trend is here to achieve it they will stay with their primitiv number comprehension.

Write4U said:
Mammalian consciousness is indeed intense. But simpler forms of non-self-aware consciousness start at a very early stage in living organisms.

Dicart said:
You are not even wrong.
Everything is in anything.
The question is : For what amount ?

I am not sure what you mean by "every natural phenomenon".
In what respect. Don't make wild accusations.
What everything is in what anything?
What amount of what?

I think that talking about counsciousness is not sufficient.
There is no "Consciousness" and "non consciousness" like if you got a switch that could swap from one state to another.
There are, like many, many, other concepts (life etc) a continuum between these two limits.
Therefore it is more interresting to admit there could be some value we could use to identify the intensity of consciousness.

Concerning the "everything is in anything", this is some kind of epistemology conclusion someone could have if he try to understand how the properties are shared upon things.
Therefore there is always something (at very low value, but not inexistent) from something in something else.
I have a little from elephant in me, there is a little of the electron in the photon, etc (per example).

Concerning
I know what you mean but you are not presenting the concept properly.

Perhaps a better posit would be ; "all things do have something in common" (a common denominator)

For instance, all living organisms have microtubules and related filaments in common. This nanoscale organelle performs many functions, including providing the "mitotic spindle" that regulates and copies the chromosomes during mitosis.

Mitosis

Mitosis is the process in which a eukaryotic cell nucleus splits in two, followed by division of the parent cell into two daughter cells. The word "mitosis" means "threads," and it refers to the threadlike appearance of chromosomes as the cell prepares to divide. Early microscopists were the first to observe these structures, and they also noted the appearance of a specialized network of microtubules during mitosis.
These tubules, collectively known as the spindle, extend from structures called centrosomes — with one centrosome located at each of the opposite ends, or poles, of a cell. As mitosis progresses, the microtubules attach to the chromosomes, which have already duplicated their DNA and aligned across the center of the cell. The spindle tubules then shorten and move toward the poles of the cell. As they move, they pull the one copy of each chromosome with them to opposite poles of the cell. This process ensures that each daughter cell will contain one exact copy of the parent cell DNA.

Figure 1: Drawing of chromosomes during mitosis by Walther Flemming, circa 1880
This illustration is one of more than one hundred drawings from Flemming's \"Cell Substance, Nucleus, and Cell Division.\" Flemming repeatedly observed the different forms of chromosomes leading up to and during cytokinesis, the ultimate division of one cell into two during the last stage of mitosis.
© 2001 Nature Publishing Group Paweletz, N. Walther Flemming: pioneer of mitosis research. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 2, 72 (2001). All rights reserved.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/mitosis-14046258/#

#### Attachments

6.8 KB · Views: 2
Last edited:
I know what you mean but you are not presenting the concept properly.

Perhaps a better posit would be ; "all things do have something in common" (a common denominator)

In fact the conception i showed above is coming from the philosophical possibility that ALL (life and not life, up and down etc) could have been created from something that already had all this in potential.
Some scientist called this the primordial atom.

amnh said:
A year later, Lemaître explored the logical consequences of an expanding universe and boldly proposed that it must have originated at a finite point in time. If the universe is expanding, he reasoned, it was smaller in the past, and extrapolation back in time should lead to an epoch when all the matter in the universe was packed together in an extremely dense state. Appealing to the new quantum theory of matter, Lemaître argued that the physical universe was initially a single particle—the “primeval atom” as he called it—which disintegrated in an explosion, giving rise to space and time and the expansion of the universe that continues to this day. This idea marked the birth of what we now know as Big Bang cosmology.
https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/cu...osmic-horizons-book/georges-lemaitre-big-bang

So, nothing need to be created after the creation. All was always here, and what we have uppon our eyes is only some repartition of what already exists.

For instance, all living organisms have microtubules and related filaments in common. This nanoscale organelle performs many functions, including providing the "mitotic spindle" that regulates and copies the chromosomes during mitosis.

You are right, the eucaryotes are using microtubules for mitosis.
This is not the case of the bacterias who are part of the procaryotes (they have no use of this for mitosis because they dont do mitosis because they only have some small circular ARN, no chromosomes) but they use microtubules for other purpose

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001213
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2120098119

So, nothing need to be created after the creation. All was always here, and what we have uppon our eyes is only some repartition of what already exists.
No, you were right the first time. The potential for life has always existed. It was a matter of probability.

Jacques Monod was wrong in claiming that emerge of life was a purely accidental event.
Robert Hazen demonstrated that life was neither an imperative, nor a single lucky chance. It was a probability that, given enough time and sufficient chemical resources life was likely to emerge.
He cited that earth alone performed some 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion experiments during it's existence and anyone that cites "luck of the draw" is ignoring the mathematical power of evolutionary processes when given enough time and spatial scales.

This is a really nice lecture by Hazen at the Carnegie Institute for Science.

start viewing at 12:00 to avoid a lengthy introduction.

Last edited:
Dicart said:
Jacques Monod was wrong in claiming that emerge of life was a purely accidental event.

Yes i think so.

The first evidence is that we can find some already complex molecules, involved in life, in random environments.
In the comets, on the dust in space, in the interstellar clouds, in milgrams experiences, per example.
Wikipedia said:
Unexpected chemicals detected in interstellar clouds

Until recently the rates of reactions in interstellar clouds were expected to be very slow, with minimal products being produced due to the low temperature and density of the clouds.

However, organic molecules were observed in the spectra that scientists would not have expected to find under these conditions, such as formaldehyde, methanol, and vinyl alcohol. The reactions needed to create such substances are familiar to scientists only at the much higher temperatures and pressures of earth and earth-based laboratories.

The fact that they were found indicates that these chemical reactions in interstellar clouds take place faster than suspected, likely in gas-phase reactions unfamiliar to organic chemistry as observed on earth.[3] These reactions are studied in the CRESU experiment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_cloud

Using science we are very skilled to understand "objects" (this is the name we give to the environment we consider separated from environment) but we are very poor minded when we need to understand the environment itself.
Therefore we dont see clearly if the environment itself can or can not (depending of) lead to the production of structures that can be considered as alife.

Jacques Monod was wrong in claiming that emerge of life was a purely accidental event.
Yes i think so.
So, you're quoting yourself now? I guess that'll give you a challenge at least...

If you think the emergence of life on Earth was "not accidental", then it follows that you believe it was on purpose, i.e. a creator.

The first evidence is that we can find some already complex molecules, involved in life, in random environments.
In the comets, on the dust in space, in the interstellar clouds, in milgrams experiences, per example.
These are no less accidental.

Yes i think so.

The first evidence is that we can find some already complex molecules, involved in life, in random environments.
In the comets, on the dust in space, in the interstellar clouds, in milgrams experiences, per example.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_cloud
Yes, Robert Hazen mentions Louis Allamandola @ NASA who studies interstellar dust and the formation of organic molecules via radiation bombardments.
Using science we are very skilled to understand "objects" (this is the name we give to the environment we consider separated from environment) but we are very poor minded when we need to understand the environment itself.
Therefore we dont see clearly if the environment itself can or can not (depending of) lead to the production of structures that can be considered as alife.
Hazen explains that life can only evolve via the formation of self-replicating polymers and that requires "surfaces" where colonies can form. This is why he mentions clay as an ideal medium for chemical interactions.

Consider that 1 cm^3 (sugarcube) of fine clay can coat an entire tennis court and then a planet like earth that has a lot of clay and few other natural resources that are necessary for the formation of biomolecules.

Hazen's argument that given a dynamic environment, some basic organic chemicals, surface spaces and time it may well be a law of probability that the emergence of lifeforms life becomes a stochastic process.

Yes, Robert Hazen mentions Louis Allamandola @ NASA who studies interstellar dust and the formation of organic molecules via radiation bombardments.

Hazen explains that life can only evolve via the formation of self-replicating polymers and that requires "surfaces" where colonies can form. This is why he mentions clay as an ideal medium for chemical interactions.

Consider that 1 cm^3 (sugarcube) of fine clay can coat an entire tennis court and then a planet like earth that has a lot of clay and few other natural resources that are necessary for the formation of biomolecules.

Hazen's argument that given a dynamic environment, some basic organic chemicals, surface spaces and time it may well be a law of probability that the emergence of lifeforms life becomes a stochastic process.

Yes, it is the "environment" (like here some kind of surface) that we dont really understand.
If you try to look around... see how many different kind of "surfaces" you can have.
We dont even have words to give a name to those surfaces (we could say "dirt" and we are good, but not in the scientific standart).

If i could give my opinion (i dont really know but it is some intuition), life like we know on earth can appear if there is some "oil" floating at the surface of the water (oceans).
There are not individual form of life but more some lipidic strata that can protect the molecules of life.
Photosynthesis could appear on those gigantic lipidic areas, and some primitiv ions exchange molecule could be involved.
The replication come after this primitiv "multilife" process and it is the start of competition leading to individuality.
So life started by the association of "almost living" form and continued with competitiv "living" forms.
First, the competition was against the environment, then the competition was against other life forms (and against the environment too)

If i could give my opinion (i dont really know but it is some intuition), life like we know on earth can appear if there is some "oil" floating at the surface of the water (oceans).
There are not individual form of life but more some lipidic strata that can protect the molecules of life.
You are not the first to think of such a hypothesis. It is usually called the "Primordial Soup".

It falls outside what we consider "life" - which requires a cellular wall that can maintain some sort of homeostasis of the contents.

When it occurs without this barrier that's keeping desired stuff in and undesired stuff out, it's really just called organic chemistry.

Yes, it is the "environment" (like here some kind of surface) that we dont really understand.
If you try to look around... see how many different kind of "surfaces" you can have.
We don't even have words to give a name to those surfaces (we could say "dirt" and we are good, but not in the scientific standard).
Actually we do have names for mineral "surfaces". The mineral name identifies the "surface structure " of the mineral.
If i could give my opinion (i dont really know but it is some intuition), life like we know on earth can appear if there is some "oil" floating at the surface of the water (oceans).
A good guess, but you may want to start even simpler with "self-organization" and:

Self-assembly

Self-assembly of lipids (a), proteins (b), and (c) SDS-cyclodextrin complexes. SDS is a surfactant with a hydrocarbon tail (yellow) and a SO4 head (blue and red), while cyclodextrin is a saccharide ring (green C and red O atoms).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly
There are not individual form of life but more some lipidic strata that can protect the molecules of life.
Photosynthesis could appear on those gigantic lipidic areas, and some primitiv ions exchange molecule could be involved.
In water some surfaces naturally form cells.

Did you get this from the Hazen lecture?
If not you will love it, trust me. He is very easy to follow and takes you through 3 possible processes of abiogenesis.

You have a keen intuition!

Last edited:
Study Maxwell, Einstein, and Stephen Hawking if you want to learn about physics.