Bruce Lipton & the cell (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, December 24, 2015, 12:48 (3256 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Back to panpsychism
dhw: This is not panpsychism. He is talking about the influence of the mind on the body. 
DAVID: I really get the impression he is proposing cellular consciousness.-He certainly is, as do Margulis, McClintock, Shapiro, Buehler & Co. But that is not the same as panpsychism.
 
Dhw: ... The support is growing.
DAVID: Your discovery of the ones who support this idea is growing, nothing more.-When the supporters are dedicated experts in the field, I would suggest they should be taken seriously and not dismissed as being “absolutely wrong”.
 
DAVID: He is confusing human consciousness with cellular activity. He wants cells with a subconscious. Just a stupid comparison
dhw: I thought you believed that cells carried masses and masses of information which they processed automatically.
DAVID:I understand how reluctantly you have come to recognize that life runs on information, with a cellular interpretation of the layers of code and modifiers doing their job. I still get the idea that originally you did not understand the presence of, and importance of, that concept. -Please believe me when I say I am not quite that stupid. My objection was to the constant and highly confusing misuse of this word, blurring the distinction between information and the mechanism that processes it, with statements like “information runs life” or “information as the source of life”. We have reached agreement on this. -dhw: That is their “subconscious”, and he is saying that this constitutes 95% of their activity. But it is the other 5% of ”consciousness” that does the creative work - the equivalent of the “brain”. It sounds stupid to you because you refuse even to contemplate the possibility that cells are sentient, cognitive beings.

DAVID: Just fancy terms to jazz up the description of a cell. The cell has algorithms to follow, simple as that. Let's use embryology: the zygote has all the DNA, but in he intact human baby each cell type has the original DNA modified for that cell type, all arranged by the algorithm of embryologic development. Now back to the single cell and how it works: if the developing embryo can do all it does automatically creating a living individual human, a single cell can run its affairs (which are much simpler) the same way. I have complex multicellular organism view in discussing this; Shapiro does not with his one-celled bacteria and how he describes them. I believe he is fully aware of my view. I repeat, he is making point about how to view the genome as a read/write mechanism.-Very impressive, but it does not invalidate Lipton's claim that cell communities function 95% automatically (= the subconscious) and 5% consciously, or Shapiro's claim that “living cells and organisms [my bold] are cognitive (sentient) entities that act and interact purposefully to ensure survival, growth and proliferation. They possess sensory, communication, information-processing, and decision-making capabilities.” As I understand it, the read/write mechanism records and retrieves information. Shapiro believes cells and organisms have the ability to process that information and make decisions based on their findings. - 
BBELLA: I read his book and am open to his findings.
dhw: Thank you. I am all in favour of openness. It complements the scepticism, and leads to a healthy balance up here on the picket fence.
DAVID: Healthy skepticism is of great value. I use it with Lipton.-Quite right too. However, you seem to exercise scepticism mainly when dealing with explanations that are different from your own!