The biochemistry of cell communication (Introduction)

by dhw, Thursday, September 01, 2016, 11:55 (3004 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw; You generously provide us with these up-to-date articles, draw your own conclusion, and then pooh-pooh any aspect of the researchers' conclusions that runs counter to those you reached when you were a student.
DAVID: I am pooh-poohing his outrageous comment that presupposes he can know what every cell is doing as he studies the reactions. I've noted over and over the hyperbole in science reporting, recently about Earth-like planets. Exciting news, even if overstated generates readership. I'm sure you know this.-I have also noticed it. Every week there is a new sensation that will somehow revolutionize our understanding of life and the universe. But the observation that cells are sentient, intelligent beings is not an overnight sensation. Lynn Margulis was promoting the idea thirty years ago, and you know that others follow the same line of thinking today. You disagree, which is your right, but I don't think this particular article is meant to be a headline-seeking revelation. The researchers seem rather to take it for granted that cells deliberately communicate and cooperate.-dhw: Continuing the batting analogy, are you saying that God has preprogrammed the batter? Or is it possible that in that split second he processes the information and takes his own decision on how to react?
DAVID: The batter uses free will and judgment to decide where to swing the bat. Same as cricket. There is no time except for automaticity to swing the bat in the right time.-What you call the free will and judgment where to swing the bat is precisely the point I am trying to make: that in a fraction of a second, automatically perceived information is consciously processed and a decision is made. Then the muscle movements automatically respond to the decision. It is the conscious processing of information and decision-making that you refuse to distinguish from the automatic perception and final implementation of the decision.-On the same subject, from a very different angle, an article in the Times caught my eye: since the 1990s the Tasmanian devil has been driven almost to extinction by a highly contagious form of cancer. In just four generations, however, there has been a “remarkable” genetic shift, and “the survivors appear to have a degree of immunity to the cancer, and go on to spread their genes throughout the local population.” How can we explain this? I would suggest that while the vast majority of the cell communities were unable to cope, a small minority worked out a solution, and once it had been found, they passed it on. What is the alternative? That God preprogrammed the first cells to pass on the solution to this particular problem (along with a few billion other problems and solutions) and eventually it managed to switch itself on in a few individuals? Or God personally intervened and dabbled with the genome of a few individuals, because the survival of the Tasmanian devil is so important to him? Once you acknowledge the possibility that cell communities are intelligent (some more than others), the whole process falls into place. And you can still have your God as the originator.-Xxxx-I have just seen your post about Shapiro, for which many thanks.
DAVID: Shapiro thinks cells think. Is this panpsychism? This article tends to accept it:-http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/08/23/24492279/what-the-white-mans-fly-tells-us-ab...-As I understand it, there are different forms of panpsychism. I have problems identifying with the idea that everything in the universe has a mental aspect, but I have no difficulty with the idea that all living organisms think in their own different ways. Once more, I am very grateful for the integrity with which you present us with articles that run contrary to your own beliefs. Of course Shapiro is a prime example of scientists who follow the Margulis line mentioned above.