Hypography Science Forums: thebigideas - Viewing Profile - Hypography Science Forums

“My opinions about single cell cognition and computational ability are partially stated in my 2007 article http://shapiro.bsd.u...eterMeeting.pdf
Cognition and decision-making are widely recognized in many types of cells, not just neurons. For example, the August 10, 2010, issue of Nature Immunology was devoted to "decision-making in the immune system." You might also look into decision-making in programmed cell death (apoptosis). Cell differentiation would be impossible if all cell divisions were equal. There is a large and growing literature on asymmetric cell divisions and the role they play in differentiation and tissue development. Even bacteria have asymmetric cell divisions when they form specialized cells, such as spores and nitrogen-fixing heterocysts."
James A. Shapiro, University of Chicago
Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biophysics

“I would point out that the notion that each neuron has a degree of consciousness was proposed by Freud in his "Project for a scientific psychology". This is one in a long line of proposals as to how individual neurons contribute to personal experience: the ideas in this work are in that tradition.”
Thomas G. Bever, University of Arizona
Professor of Psychology

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

What measurements deny my assertion? I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Cheery pick much? It says that the cell strives to maintain its electrical balance and the cell recognizes when it is electrically unbalanced and will open its sodium pores in an attempt to maintain its own electrical balance. The cell responds to electrical imbalance and the response is based on a necessity to become electrically balanced.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

I have not demonstrated “any” tendency to follow the evidence? This is what we call selective reasoning. You can’t be expected to be taken seriously when you make idiotic comments like this.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Old age does play tricks on us, but your selective reasoning does not reflect you in a positive light. You make these absolute statements repeatedly and it makes me wonder how much of your reasoning I can take seriously. Please tone down these absolute statements. These statements are inaccurate and damage your credibility.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Do you know the difference between the experience of pain from having a hair pulled off your arm and the experience of pain from having your arm set on fire? You may not know the perfectly quantified difference, but you have a reasonable idea of the difference because you can subjectively measure the difference. This answers your question and I can stop here, but let us take it further to save us both some time. Before electricity could be measured, imagine how many thousands of scientists thought that it was impossible to measure electricity. The sun set on their empire. Did the inability to measure electricity stop the pursuit of the paradigm shift? Of course it was all worth it after the fact, but inevitably your close minded and pessimistic point of view will lose out. I am not saying for us to be open minded to every idea proposed by the masses, but the evidence does point to feelings, emotions, and consciousness being the byproduct of electricity and electric charge. If consciousness, feelings, and emotions are electricity then we will one day measure this state. And on that day the sun will set on your empire.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Answer your own question. Can you recognize a change in your own emotional state without knowing the starting point? How did you do that? Scientists have a very good idea of the emotional states of people based on how the brain fires. This is only the beginning.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Ahh it is beginning to make sense. You are basing your argument on these measurements that you took. How often do you find yourself in the lab these days Mr. James. They play a direct role in the context of this discussion because part of the discussion is on the electrical balance of cells and how changes in the electrical balance of cells can cause responses that serve to get them back to an electrically balanced state.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Care to explain? I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

I did my due diligence on this one and traced back all your comments. Took me a little time, but I wanted to verify something very important. You have not pointed out the substantive errors. Maybe you pointed out the substantive errors in your brain, but alas, some mixed signals may have canceled out the responses needed to transfer it to this message board. You believe that you are clever and can mask your leg work, but I am 100% entrenched in this conversation and your smoke and mirrors will never work on me and I will try my best to bring things to light so they do not work on others. The only thing that results from using this strategy is for me to downgrade your reputation faster than S&P downgraded Bear Sterns.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

So predictable a book can be written about it. Unfortunately for you, the chickens have come home to roost and a lifetime of depending on a smoke and mirror strategy has landed you in a pitfall. By stating in the previous response that you have pointed out substantive errors, you believe that you have defended your position and you point to the substantive errors that never made it to the message board. You are not pointing to any data of neurophysiology or substantive errors when you speak, but you believe that you are. All that results is me appealing to you to present the required data to defend your position and you playing smoke and mirrors. Now, I give credit where credit is due and you did ask for me to apply the ideas presented in the book to the causal events occurring in the eye under certain conditions, but this does not support your position. The reality is that you are not actually supporting your position, you are just playing debate games. It is childish, unproductive, and a waste of my time so please contribute data to support your position. I defined your terms, established my position, presented my data, and all I see if smoke and mirrors. SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Anyone with competence in neurophysiology who agrees with your assessment would be a lazy moron, to put it nicely. They may agree with your position, but your assessment needs some serious refining. You throw out assumptions, display laziness, appeal to data that has not been presented, and you display contempt for those who argue against you. You want my psychiatric assessment? You do this as a coping mechanisms so you can live your life in emotional balance

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Not being optimistic and being strongly pessimistic are two different things.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Appeal to authority much?

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

We need to find your students as fast as possible and evaluate them to make sure that you have not caused them any permanent damage. I support the necessity to show students right from wrong, but your methods have displayed inaccuracy and laziness. I also believe that you possess a great deal of knowledge, I never denied this. But you assume with a vengeance and your methodology is in error.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Another example of smoke and mirrors. You have not explained anything. You are simply appealing to authority and not presenting any data to back up your claims.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Maybe if you actually presented something of substance or some data to defend your position I could respect what you are saying. Your entire defense appears to have come down to an appeal to authority.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

You are clearly a selective reasoning, cherry picking empiricist.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Maybe you should go back to staying true to your beliefs on science and not presenting a position based on assumptions.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Emotions and consciousness are irrelevant to science until they meet the fundamental criteria of study? This statement is so moronic that I am shocked. Do you expect to be taken seriously? Scientists like you believe they are protecting the integrity of science, but all they are doing is holding it back from reaching its potential. I am all for requiring due diligence, but never to the point of selective reasoning and being closed minded to reality.

Ohh, your effort is increasing... but now you seem to be doing a little scooping from the bottom of the barrel. Exploiting gaps in language and science appears central to your retired function, but it will prove to do you minimal favor in this age of exponential innovation. It appears that you are starting to abandoned a macro defense and you have retreated to a combination of rank pulling, cherry picking, and a micro defense... I thrive on this sustenance. You are here to debate, but I am here to probe for information and it appears that certain wells runneth dry. You approach the situation like I am applying for a Ph.D and you are the people's champ trying to defend science's holy name. But the sun will eventually set on your old empire. You are troy with a massive defense, but the Trojan horse has already made it inside and there are only so many fortified towers left in the city.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Your definition of feel is a thorn in your side. You are using the definition of emotions in humans as the definition for feelings in cells. They are not the same thing. You exaggerate the meaning of subjective experience, awareness, and the ability to experience feeling. It is not a light switch that is on or off, but a sliding scale of intensity. It is more like comparing a light bulb to a computer. The only person introducing anthropomorphic concepts is yourself. The primitive feelings in a cell give rise to the complex consciousness of humans. If they didn’t “feel” something then human’s, as a whole, would not have a complex consciousness. Human’s are nothing but a compilation of cells. Consciousness is not the end result of this compilation, but a complex consciousness is the end result of this compilation.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Incorrect, feelings are also known as a state of consciousness. A human subjective experience is not mandatory. Your definition of feelings does not reflect the entire scientific communities definition of feelings. Anything with a consciousness can feel. The definition of consciousness is not set in stone, yet you believe that it is. You cherry pick more than I and it is apparent by your compelling urge to only accept empirical evidence, on consciousness and emotions, in relation to human subjective experience. Do animal’s not feel? “There is absolutely no way that you can be sure that your experience is the same as someone else's, common usage does not open any door to telepathic integration.” – A defense that no longer pays the bills unfortunately… Inflation is a bitch. We may not be absolutely sure that one’s experience is the same as other peoples' experience, but if other peoples' experience follows what is defined as an experience than we can scientifically accept that an experience has occurred.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Occam’s single blade isn’t going to cut it anymore and we are sick of the rash it leaves behind. Occam needs to upgrade to a Mach 5. Selecting the competing hypothesis that makes the fewest new assumptions may generally work, but it is not guaranteed to work every time, especially in areas of science as complicated as consciousness. This is why you are so turned off by areas of science like the study of consciousness and emotions because it doesn’t follow the ridged rules of what you define as science at the moment. You are going to lose this war and your catapults will be meaningless when the tanks come rolling in. By using Lloyd Morgan you are supporting my position and fighting my battles for me, thanks. "In no case may we interpret an action as the outcome of the exercise of a higher psychical faculty, if it can be interpreted as the outcome of the exercise of one which stands lower in the psychological scale." – Lloyd Morgan. Let us take our good friend’s advice and not assume that consciousness is a result of the whole and instead let us assume that consciousness is the result of the smallest piece, especially when that piece appears to show adequate qualifications.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

You act like the case is closed and we have answered the questions of consciousness and emotions. We have not solved the problems at hand and that is because your explanation does not reach the necessity required.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

So you and other readers can more efficiently understand what is being discussed. It should be obvious that it is not meant in the human sense. Your defense in word play is a smoke and mirrors strategy that will get you nowhere with me and I will give you 0 credit if you continue to retreat from the discussion or distract from its focus. I am not applying for a Ph.D and if we approach the conversation in this manner then this will end up being a conversation that will take years longer than it needs to be. I am here to get the data and not to keep you occupied on your Sunday afternoon. Single cells do not formulate strategies to overcome their “enemies” because this would require a complex consciousness and this is something single cells do not possess. Do light bulbs perform quantum calculations? Of course they do not. I have no problem clarifying something that is too vague or properly explaining something that is seriously tangled, but your appeal to the obvious, in an effort to pinch points in a debate, is a waste of my time. Bringing down a conversation to these levels will only ostracize you from your peers and it is an obvious attempt to hold others in contempt.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

You jump back and forth in this debate and actually argue for my position a lot of the time. You must be accustomed to discussions with people who do not know better. It does not suffice. The current explanations do not paint the entire picture and may not accurately paint that picture. Please explain to us how the simple description of events suffices when it doesn’t even suffice for yourself? You act like everything is fine when in reality you are at war with the study of consciousness and emotion because you believe that any explanation will never suffice based on the rigorous requirements of science.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Already explained above.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Ohh yes I can, but you and the scientific community could not, up until this point, because you are using outdated “equipment”. Allow me to use examples from the book.

“A cell’s drive to maintain the electrical/emotional balance of its emotional electricity is what we have come to call motivation. Motivation is a sense that all living cells with DNA possess and this sense exists to maintain the emotional balance of emotional electricity. Emotional electricity becomes emotionally unbalanced by receiving a positive or negative charge. When the emotional electricity in a living cell with DNA receives a positive charge then the cell will experience HEE or Happy Emotional Electricity or experienced happiness and when the emotional electricity in a cell receives a negative charge then the cell will experience SEE or Sad Emotional Electricity or experienced sadness. Charges range in value and these values are based on intensity and duration. Both HEE and SEE are types of feelings. Individual cells experience feelings and groups of cells in animals give rise to what we have come to label as complex emotions. Countless cells need to be involved to create complex emotions in humans (like love). If a normal person cuts their leg, they will experience pain and their pain in this instance will generally be comprised of a varied value of 100% SEE. However, if a masochist cuts their leg it may cause what we define as pain, but for them, pain is comprised of a varied value of 60% SEE and 40% HEE. Masochists experience some pleasure when they cause themselves to experience what we define as pain. It is inaccurate to assume that a standard amount of HEE or SEE is inherent in any emotion or action for every person.”

The scientific community had problems up to this point because they cannot define emotions using a simple on or off definition. However, if values of intensity and duration are used coupled with motivation, love can be defined. Love does not have a definite value of HEE or SEE, the value is varied on a case-by-case basis. Once we are capable of quantifying emotional electricity then we can more accurately define emotions based on values of HEE and SEE.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

This is another problems that you face as a result of using outdated knowledge. This is why an upgrade to this new reasoning is requested for review.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Short-hand description of reaction to environmental threat is a more accurate example than spending sleepless nights worrying about your next mortgage. You keep trying to compare the consciousness of the whole with the consciousness of smallest piece, stop with your anthropomorphic attempt to confuse the conversation. This is like comparing the actions of Goldman Sachs as a whole with the actions of a single employee inside Goldman Sachs. The CEO of GS is like the original cell of a human. Analysts in GS are like normal cells in the body. The CEO doesn’t manage the analysts directly, that is what a chain of command is for.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

You let those rather loosely applied terms slide you into redefining them as anthropomorphic concepts. You do not do this purposely, but you do not understand what is begin discussed in the book and instead you are basing your arguments (inaccurately) on what you believe is being discussed.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Haha, thanks for the layup. Think about what you are saying.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

More of the same. This type of question has already been answered two times and it’s a waste of time to keep answering the same question. Please save us both some time and reread my responses to this question of “feel.”

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Ohh no you did not… can you believe this guy? Even without the opportunity to learn the advances in neurophysiology that are available to us today, I can appeal to an authority who has relevance to the subject matter as currently, and only partially understood. Some of his information is accurate, even though he did not have access to what is currently available to us. You are not saying he is wrong by presenting empirical support, you are assuming he is wrong because of when he died.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Please explain how this is inaccurate. I rather not take your word for it. I do not want to make the mistake of appealing to what others might consider an authority.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Haha, read the book and stop being lazy. I am not and cannot copy and paste 30 pages on this forum.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

The Rod cells becomes electrically unbalanced and they pass this electrical unbalance up the chain of command until another cell(s) can correct the electrical imbalance. It is also possible that the reactions they display are the process they take to become electrically balanced. When we burn ourselves with fire and experience pain we move away from the fire and this causes a reduction in the pain and eventually an experience of pleasure.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

Receiving input information causes the bipolars to become electrically unbalanced or balanced and this causes the bipolar to experience feelings. You may think of feelings as simple reactions and most cells are programmed to have these simple defined reactions, but this could be comparable to starving a kid for an entire day and then putting his/her favorite meal in front of them. They are going to eat the meal, assuming they are functioning properly. Functioning properly for them is comparable to normal living cells with DNA functioning properly.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

This describes the concept of several cells becoming emotionally unbalanced and rebalanced either immediately, when the body sleeps, or at some other time. The difference is that if signals are based on electricity and conservation of electrical charge applies to this electricity, then all of these signals must eventually be electrically balanced. It is also important to note that these reactions are based on the Law of Emotional Balance and without the Law of Emotional Balance these cells couldn’t have consistent programmed reactions. Without these consistent programmed reactions there could not be complex organisms like humans. The reactions are a byproduct of becoming electrically balanced, we will soon see that these reactions are always based on becoming electrically balanced.

Ken, on 19 December 2010 - 09:02 AM, said:

The mixed-message in this instance electrically balances the bipolar cell so it does not need to react to electrically balance itself. The body is not perfect and begins to break down once it loses the ability to automatically electrically balance the cells. Cells will always die electrically balanced, but cells may die earlier than possible if the body can’t efficiently keep them electrically balanced.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Subjective experience, awareness, and the ability to experience feeling. Protists, protozoa, respond to various forms of stimuli either positively or negatively. Evidently they must "feel" something. They exhibit aggressive behavior, for example Lacrymaria olor is an extremely aggressive single celled protist. As for stress, they do feel physical stress, in that some protists will form cysts when environmental conditions become adverse for their existence. Therefore placing them under physical stress. When cells receive a stimulus they have a programmed response. Whether its stress or whatever. Signal binds to receptor on cell surface and gets transmitted to the nucleus which responds by producing certain proteins and ultimately the cell responds in a certain way. An amoeba, a single celled or unicellular organism, exhibits choice in selecting food. It has no brain in the way that we think of a brain but instead must have some sort of bio- receptors to distinguish what is food and what is not food. It is capable of making a choice and is a single cell. Cells behave strange when you put ethanol into the medium. Tissue Cells Feel and Respond to the stiffness of their substrate. “Every brain cell has its own individual consciousness, which no other cell knows anything about.” – William James. There is no mechanism for access to information held in several cells other than through signals converging on a single cell. Functionally, neurons are as separate as people, capable of exchanging information but not pooling it. What we know of the brain indicates that binding could not occur between cells linked by discrete signals but might occur in a cell.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Their electrical charge. I am basing this on the law of conservation of charge.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

It is defined and observed based on the data I provided in my last post. The measured part is based on the law of conservation of charge.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Science is pointing towards the ability to measure emotions in humans. The use of fMRI and other technology will also assist in the ability to measure emotions. If feelings are based on electric charge then it is possible that we will one day be able to accurately measure the feelings of cells. The receptors on cells, the opening of sodium pores, and the use of ion pumps show the need for electrical balance in cells and in time this may bridge to our understanding of feelings.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Of course they will not conquer the orderly investigation of science of phenomena, but it can compel towards the implementation of new promising investigations. Let us follow the evidence and not exclude the cherry picking that leads us out of the box.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Ahh, you appear to be confused. Measuring a conscious state and measuring changes in this conscious state are two separate things, but you seem to not realize a difference.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

I am not only counting neurons. I am counting all living cells with DNA.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

I agree and this was never said. You have a misconception of what is being discussed.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Ahh, you appear to be confused. Measuring a conscious state and measuring changes in this conscious state are two separate things, but you seem to not realize a difference. We may not know the base value to start, but we may be able to measure the changes in this base value. You do not seem to consider dips after action potentials, opening of sodium pores, peptide functionality, and other electrically based changes that occur.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

This is a generalized assumption that automatically closes yourself off to a tremendous amount of empirical research. If classical physics fails to explain quantum mechanics do you throw out quantum mechanics? Of course not, you investigate and attempt to update the outdated rules to explain the the empirical research.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Seems like you have fallen into the logical fallacy of assuming something is right or wrong without even attempting to study conflicting opinions based in areas outside your expertise.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Should we drop the study of emotions and consciousness because we can't perfectly quantify either and the study of either will never live up to the rigorous demands of the currently defined grounds of study of the material universe. QED changed the game and rules and in the future other empirical evidence force the same to occur. Is studying psychology a waste of time? The topics of discussion are not impossible questions for science, but maybe they are for your definition of science. And your definition of science is far to old fashioned.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Incorrect and a huge misconception. The question is not solved, but the question deserves to be asked, addressed, and answered.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

This is what we call projecting.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

ohh, by all means please enlighten us with the well supported theory, (explaining consciousness and emotions), that has been so well supported by empirical testing that it stands above other less well tested theories.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:46 PM, said:

Anything plausible without 100% proof is an assumption. Most psychologists would say that you seem to be at war with the study of emotions and consciousness. This is very pessimistic and close minded. We may not be able to perfectly study emotions and consciousness at the moment, but innovation changes the game and rules all of the time.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

If you read the link provided it helps support the argument that consciousness in humans is the result of consciousness in individual cells. We are dealing with the most difficult questions in science and you can't expect everything to be wrapped so nicely or another party would have already given us the answer. This conversation went from ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR CELLS TO BE CONSCIOUS to its possible for cells to be conscious. Score 1 for the thebigideas...

We may not have the technology to perfectly measure consciousness or emotions, but we also don't have the technology to claim that it is implausible for consciousness and emotion to be balanced at the moment of their destruction. Technically most things can't be proven 100% without a doubt. But we are talking about reasonable doubt based on what we currently accept as empirical evidence. Based on what is acceptable to the scientific community there is no way for a flying spaghetti monster to have created the earth. But based on what is currently accepted as empirical evidence it is plausible to conclude that individual cells have some primitive consciousness, cells experience some form of feelings, consciousness and emotions are the result of electricity, and this electricity is governed by the conservation of charge.

If you form the question like "how is this conscious state measured" I believe you are shooting yourself in the foot and asking a question that is too big right now... so it must be cut down a little. Let us divide and conquer. We may not be able to measure a conscious state perfectly at this moment, but we may be able to measure changes in this conscious state (emotions and feelings) and the result will allow us to better answer the question of how this conscious state is measured. If we approach consciousness as each human's base consciousness comes from a single cell, and our complex consciousness is the result of trillions of cells sending electric charges either directly or indirectly to this single cell, then we may be able to find a new way to answer the big questions like how is this conscious state measured.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

I am confident that this metaphysical opinion is offered with supportive data in the book this quote was taken from. I googled the quote and it came from "Your Body is Your Subconscious Mind" by Candace Pert, Ph.D.

Ken, on 18 December 2010 - 06:24 AM, said:

Remember, we are trying to answer the most difficult questions posed to the scientific community. We can't look at a single piece of supporting research and say, BAM! QUESTION SOLVED, but we can take supporting research from 100s of sources and paint a picture of what is possible and was is clearly impossible. The author is not trying to prove the Law of Emotional Balance without a reasonable doubt, the author is trying to show that the Law of Emotional Balance may in all reality be a solution to these problems if we begin to view the Law of Emotional Balance without assumptions or misconceptions.