Cell Memories (Identity)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 31, 2014, 22:53 (3549 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: We both need to read Shapiro's book, but please note the constant references below to cognitive abilities and decision-making, which we normally apply to human thought processes, such as learning and problem-solving. The second quote specifically refers to novelty. The third quote lists many of the qualities that quite clearly are NOT associated with robots (to which you have compared cells). Please read all four quotes to get the complete picture.-I have carefuly read the book and annotated it. I am looking at those pages now.
> 
> •	Evolution in Revolution
> 
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3204118/
> 
> QUOTE 1: “Shapiro's book starts with characterization of cells relying on sensing and signaling for their cognitive life-or-death decisions in response to environmental stress and for their responses to diverse developmental cues and signals. He is stating clearly that all cells, even prokaryotic ones, rely heavily on sensing and decision-making processes in order to survive and reproduce faithfully in ever changing environment. Shapiro concludes that each cell has to make many signal-dependent life-or-death decisions requiring cognitive abilities. This cognitive view of cells, based on their sensory systems and information processing apparatus, changes our understanding of life and requires radical reformulation of the central dogma of molecular biology.”
> 
> QUOTE 2: “Novelty in evolution is inherently linked to the active and cognitive lifestyle of organisms, which continually updates the genome via natural genome editing mechanisms. Random genetic mutations can happen but do not have a decisive role in driving biological evolution.”
> 
> QUOTE 3: “This 21st century synthesis will include our recent understanding of life as a phenomenon supported by knowledge embodied in sentient chemical systems, where biocommunication is inherently linked to life as well as to biological evolution. Sentience, subjectivity, cognition, communication, and intelligence appear to be inherently associated with both life and biological evolution.”
> 
> QUOTE 4: “Darwinian competition, predation, and struggle for life are being complemented with cooperation, communication, cognition, learning and behaviour, which are also essential ingredients of biological evolution.”
> 
> You may disagree with Shapiro, but please don't tell me that I have stretched his ideas beyond recognition by suggesting that cells as sentient, cooperative, intelligent, decision-making beings, and not automata, may have played a vital role in evolution. I will wait for your reaction to these quotes before discussing their huge implications in relation to the rest of your post.-Your quotes are correct, and I could give you others that would further reinforce your proposed inerpretation of Shapiro. Read this quote carefully:-pg. 145 at the bottom: "A shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell systems is a major conceptual change. It replace the 'invisible hands' of geologic time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular functions for self-modification. This emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic and information-based rathr than stochastic." -I agree with all of this.-First point. He is proselytizing his point of view so his writing is very forceful. Secondly I believe he is correct. But what I can't get you to undertstand is 1) note that it is all "information based"; 2) the sensory systems and self-modification fuctions are serial biochemical reactions under tight feed back controls (a causes b, which causes c, which makes d, which modifies a to stop at a certain point).-This is how cells work. Yes, they are sentient in that they pick up signals from without. They have built-in responses to those signals, a small range of responses. And that is all we can say. It is a giant leap to conclude that this explains or even points a way to explaining punctuated equilibrium. All it does is offer the possibility that somehow epigentics causes speciation. It only results in small changes. But it in no way explains the huge jumps, which is what the fossil record gives us. His work offers hope that we are on the right path, but you are using very stretched assumptions from his work, which only describes tiny steps. And all of his research is in bacteria, where it is easiest to define these possible evolutionary mechanisms. He basically wants us to abandon RM & NS and concentrate on epigenetics, which I have. Your theory is based on his work, but if you asked him, I'll bet he would tell you he has no way of knowing if you are even close to a solution to the question.