The question has been asked on many science/philosophy forums in the past. Basically it asks about a baby born without any of the five senses. I'm asking something similar to that.
At some point in the deep past, life formed here on Earth. Evolution has developed the senses over time, at least that's what I think is true. However, when we're talking about the first life form, do we allow it at least one sense? Do you think the first life form had any sense of the world at all?
(Nov 14, 2016 05:46 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]However, when we're talking about the first life form, do we allow it at least one sense? Do you think the first life form had any sense of the world at all?
When dealing with if and how the earliest possible stage of "life" could cope with its environment in a non-passive manner, there's an ambiguous dividing line between what's merely simple chemical responses and what qualifies as a more sophisticated and specialized system of detection (sensory).
Bacteria have chemosensing mechanisms which detect attractants and repellents in their environment.
Although viruses are claimed to lack any sensory apparatus, they nevertheless have to chance upon and enter animal cells and subvert their interior workings to their reproductive needs. If that doesn't qualify as complex detection, then it certainly involves a basic responding to / interacting with the presence of microscopic organisms.
With the exception of
giant viruses possibly throwing a monkey wrench into the origins of life, viruses are not taken to be entities which preceded the development of living cells (are ancestors, IOW). Thus arguably do not provide an example of a borderline development billions of years ago.
Prions are not even quasi-alive. But they are distorted proteins which will bind to other proteins of their type which they encounter and cause an alteration in their conformation (produce another prion). Apparently that's just the chance opportunity of not only winding-up within an organism but accidentally meeting other molecules that can be changed, and the increasing population of prions thereby greatly multiplying the probability of more chance opportunities.
I don't think that the first life form was alone. Unless there was only a nanosecond of ideal conditions, I'm thinking the process that created the first, created many if not millions more of the same. I can't imagination just how precarious the life of only one living thing would be when left to fend for itself. Only incredible luck would allow a one and only life form to survive.
Now if science is correct in saying underwater smokers/vents were a likely birthplace then I'm guessing that temperature was the first thing sensed by a living thing on this planet. Wouldn't the warmest of the new life forms stand the best chance of survival? Doesn't chemical activity favor a warmer environment?
Changing gears here.....Philosophically speaking, life at one point may have sensed nothing of this world, it just was. It existed despite being senseless. The reality for the first living thing would be the world as it exists, no? But can life experience the world without sensing it?
(Nov 15, 2016 03:57 AM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ][...] Changing gears here.....Philosophically speaking, life at one point may have sensed nothing of this world, it just was. It existed despite being senseless. The reality for the first living thing would be the world as it exists, no? But can life experience the world without sensing it?
Arguably any organism without a brain or equivalent-function organ is still little more than a sophisticated machine (even when possessing sensors or having detection capabilities). Materialist orthodoxy seems to be against even mitigated varieties of
panpsychism. So in the preset context of that ontological view, we can take it that a single-celled eukaryotic organism is just as much wallowing around in "not even a manifestation and cognition of nothing" as we will be after death.
The exception might be if Penrose and Hameroff's attribution to microtubules was really the case, of their having operations which yielded a pre-neural level of consciousness (and even intelligence?).
John McCrone:
"There is... evidence that the cytoskeleton could serve as a primitive brain. Biologists have long been puzzled how a simple single-celled animal, like the slipper-shaped paramecium, could behave so intelligently when it has no nervous system. A paramecium is surprisingly nimble as it swims about in pond-bottom detritus, twisting in and out of tight spaces in search of its dinner. Somehow the protozoan manages to respond swiftly to information coming in from a light-sensitive eyespot and its touch-sensitive cilia to co-ordinate its swimming action. Several biologists have speculated that the cytoskeleton could serve as the communication and information processing link needed to organise such relatively complex behaviour."
Some of us need a clear understand of chemical reactions, electromagnetic reactions, and sensing the environment. I found this link and it is totally overwhelming for me.
https://www.reference.com/science/organe...df0427f6c1
Long ago I read a book about cells and as I understand our biology we would not exist if we did not host other organisms, such as mitochondrion. That is our lives would not be possible without symbiotic relationships with other organisms. More complex life forms resulting from a cell absorbing another cell that from then on lives symbiotically with the host. But I would not say the simpler organisms are sensing their environment any more than a man made sponge is sensing its environment when it absorbs water.
That is I agree with CC "Arguably any organism without a brain or equivalent-function organ is still little more than a sophisticated machine". Except we think of machines as being made of metal and having gears, and I have an uneasy feeling equating life with machines. That seems to be a cultural bias that was not possible before machines became common. Maybe as we explore this subject more fully we will be able to communicate rather than reacting to each other like a cat and dog. I think those of the science of community and those of spiritual the community have opposing perspectives. Machines do not have life.
(Nov 15, 2016 06:53 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]John McCrone: "There is... evidence that the cytoskeleton could serve as a primitive brain. Biologists have long been puzzled how a simple single-celled animal, like the slipper-shaped paramecium, could behave so intelligently when it has no nervous system. A paramecium is surprisingly nimble as it swims about in pond-bottom detritus, twisting in and out of tight spaces in search of its dinner. Somehow the protozoan manages to respond swiftly to information coming in from a light-sensitive eyespot and its touch-sensitive cilia to co-ordinate its swimming action. Several biologists have speculated that the cytoskeleton could serve as the communication and information processing link needed to organise such relatively complex behaviour."
I remember studying that little bugger in high school biology. An interesting one celled organism to say the least. I really liked the above quote, can't help marvelling how some people's minds think. Makes sense to me, wish I'd thought of it.
Did you ever see Martin Hanczyc's (may be spelled wrong) lecture on TED re protocells. One of my favorites of all time. You would be hard pressed to think his little protocells that appear lifelike for a few seconds are not sensing their surroundings. I'm on my way out the door so I don't have time to paste it here. Maybe once I get back I can insert it.
"... the converse suggestion [of the protocell circus is] that human behavior is actually a complex reflection of the behavior of primordial chemistry." --Protocell Circus
Those playful electrochemical interactions between protocell droplets can also reflect upon the nub of the
hard problem of consciousness. Since basic processes like the former are commonly treated as completely devoid of internal states (experiences or "phenomenal events"), there is neither a precursor capacity nor a primitive building-block to work up from to the manipulation and the integration of such by a brain to yield the grand "showings" of images, sounds, odors, and feelings which we apprehend as "being there" or presented.
Whereas OTOH, there is no enigma to the emergence of complicated biological bodies and behaviors due to atoms, motions, and connective properties / regulatory forces being the case beforehand for life to arise from.
The contemporary version of philosophical naturalism which science is at least methodologically bound to tends to have preset prejudices against both
panprotoexperientialism and the idea of brute emergence (magical-like conjuring of an entirely new feature occurring at some particular stage of complex patterns being performed). But there is more aversion toward the former than the latter, so we usually wind-up with the appearance of the latter being some default, general or ambiguous answer which is grudgingly accepted.
It seems strange to be quoting an anthropologist with the kind of offbeat leanings of Arthur Custance, but below he does illustrate the crux of the dilemma more succinctly than most. Just replace his broader use of "mind" with narrower "experience", "phenomenal events", etc. Because there is no puzzle over how intellect can arise from mechanistic relationships, especially with the advent of computers.
Arthur Custance:
It is important to distinguish a "novelty," which arises suddenly but has its origin within an existing system, from a "new thing" which has been introduced from outside the system. The first is something de novo, the latter is something ex nihilo.
Since science cannot deal successfully with the latter, the idea of outright creation is not allowable. Within the framework of scientific thinking an object which is claimed to be ex nihilo is suspect, and a determined effort will be made to show how it can be derived from what already exists, however complex and novel it may appear to be. If mind arises de novo as an entirely new thing in nature, perhaps as the result of a mutation of some kind, it is nevertheless assumed that it is to be derived directly from what is already in existence. The idea of something new which has appeared ex nihilo, that is to say, out of nothing, is most unwelcome in the present climate of scientific thought.
We therefore have two basic views about the origin of mindedness, one of which is acceptable in spite of the mystery surrounding it, because it is derived out of existing matter. This is termed monism. The other view, which sees it as a direct creation, not derived out of existing matter but "out of nothing,'' is termed dualism. It is not scientifically respectable.
We may, however, make a further division of the subject by recognizing that within the strictly monistic view mindedness might arise de novo in two different ways. It might arise by slow emergence until it suddenly becomes recognizable as mindedness. Or it might appear by a single leap as soon as the complexity of the brain had reached a certain critical stage. The first is a gradual formation of a mindedness that was "always there" but at such a low level as not to be recognizable. This is the position of panpsychism, which holds that all matter has mindedness. The second is a sudden appearance of mindedness which thereafter has an existence in its own right, but born of existing matter nevertheless.
Dualism can also be conceived as occurring in two ways, mindedness may be introduced ex nihilo in kind of embryonic form which does not reveal itself until a certain stage of organic development has been reached. Or it is introduced ex nihilo only when the advanced stage of development has been completed. Thus, although we have four alternatives, they can be viewed as two: monism and dualism. We may thus say that mindedness arose because matter contained within itself the potential for it; or we may say that it was introduced by some means external to matter.
Either view presents a dilemma which has been recognized for a long time. In one case we must say that even atoms have potential mindedness--a circumstance which is difficult to conceive. Or we have the direct creation of something out of nothing--which is equally difficult to conceive. We face a hard choice. --The Mysterious Matter of Mind
Today I read an Wiki article on hyperosmia, increased olfactory acuity or heightened sense of smell. From the article : "It has been observed that the inhalation of hydrocarbons can cause hyperosmia, most likely due to the destruction of dopaminergic neurons in the olfactory bulb." I believe conditions on Earth at the dawn of its life forms would have been a hydrocarbon lovers paradise. I not sure if hydrocarbons created sense or just gives it a boost. If the former, taking into consideration a large presence of hydrocarbons, then could one say the development of sense is due mainly to hydrocarbons. That said, are our senses today more acute than at times when hydrocarbon levels were lower? I know that workplace fragrance intolerance seems to support this but I can't say for sure.
Obviously I'm on the side of atoms having potential mindedness. The only reason I checked on hypersensitivity was to convince myself even more...lol
CC, is that accepted science or is it pseudo-science? I ask because it matches perfectly with my understanding, and I am always accused of pseudo-science. However, I am quite sure Spinozan was familiar with India's philosophy. ( Indeed, perhaps, in some Spinozan way, consciousness is identical to electromagnetism, though modern panpsychism certainly isn’t committed to this.) We have trouble with this thinking, but the people of India assume it. To me, it just makes since.
One brain cell does not equal a human brain. Systems require an exchange of stimulus and reaction, yin and yang. Without a need for vision, it does not develop, although the potential is there. Neurons that are not used atrophy and die while those that are stimulated continue to grow. You probably know this but for fun, what if the center of the universe is spitting out protons like the hippocampus spits out neurons? What is spit out can move and morph into what is needed.
Quote:Most brain cells, or neurons, are created before you're born. However, throughout adulthood new neurons are born in a brain region called the hippocampus, where new memories are formed. After the cells are created they integrate into existing brain regions.
Your Brain Cant Make New Cells - BrainFacts.org
www.brainfacts.org/sensing.../your-brain-cant-make-new-cells-myth/
Nothing is outside the universe and all is of the universe. What separates us from it, maybe our ego's?