It doesn’t need to be to show my point. The making of reproductive cells is something that takes place unconsciously and without cognition, it also serves a purpose.
There is purpose without cognition.
As you aver, allmendream! Again. And again.
My claim, however (FWIW) is that even unicellular organisms possess a form of basic awareness, a sort of "proto-intelligence."
BTW, you didn't say anything about Hontela's pet amoeba.... But then, you really haven't responded to any of the points I've raised recently. Sigh.
Anyhoot, I thought this was interesting:
...[T]he interactions between the molecules of any organism generally do not create the functions of the organism, but it is the other way around: The functions of the organism initiate and control the interactions between its molecules. The necessity for such control is obvious. Using the example of contractile proteins, the molecules can only polymerize, depolymerize or slide along each other, but they would not know when and with what force and when to stop. A signal-integrating mechanism is required.Again, if you have the time allmendream, do check out the link. I think you'll find it very interesting.Why should the situation be different for single cells? After all protozoa are in effect small, but quite universal organism and the above conclusion should apply to them as much as to a fly, a frog or the author of this website. Yet, the vast majority of today's biologists devote their efforts to prove the opposite, namely that specific molecular interactions create the cellular functions such as cell division, directed locomotion, differentiation, design of the extracellular matrix, adhesion to materials and other cells and so forth.
My research for the past 30 years or so was devoted to examine whether cells have such signal integration and control center(s). The results suggest that mammalian cells, indeed, posess intelligence. The experimental basis for this conclusion is presented in the following web pages.
The most significant experimental results are:
1. The motile machinery of cells contains subdomains ('microplasts') that can be isolated from the cell and then are capable of autonomous movements. Yet, inside the cell they do not exercise their ability....2. The cell as a whole is capable of immensely complex migration patterns for which their genome cannot contain a detailed program as they are responses to unforseeable encounters. (Cell movement is not random.)
3. Cells can 'see', i.e. they can map the directions of near-infrared light sources in their environment and direct their movements toward them. No such 'vision' is possible without a very sophisticated signal processing system ('cell brain') that is linked to the movement control of the cell. (The larger their light scattering, the larger the distance from which aggregating cells came together. )
In addition there is the supporting theoretical consideration that the hiterto completely unexplained complex structure of centrioles is predicted in every detail if one asks what structure a cellular 'eye' should have....
An operational definition of the intelligent cell.
First a disclaimer. My work did not intend to join the ongoing efforts of philosophers, logicians and computer scientists to find a universal definition of intelligence. On the contrary, it did not question the common assumption that everybody can tell a mindless, mechanical gadget from an intelligent machine, and proceeded to ask which of the two categories apply to a living cell. Clearly, there are many different levels of intelligence, but I believe that most people consider a machine mechanical and mindless if its actions either do not seem to respond to signals or else always show an immutable set of reactions. On the other hand, we expect an intelligent machine to respond to signals in a large variety of ways, especially if the signals are unforeseeable, and if its responses offer solutions to problems, which were transmitted by the signals. Usually, this means that the intelligent machine contains at least 2 different machines, one which is mindless and carries out some mechanical labor while the other collects and processes signals and controls the action of the first. Therefore, we may use the following operational definition of an intelligent cell. An intelligent cell contains a compartment, which is capable of collecting and integrating a variety of physically different and unforeseeable signals as the basis of problem-solving decisions.Are there reasons to think that cells are intelligent?
The prevailing wisdom of modern biology has it that cells are immensely complex, but rigidly operating chemical machines that derive their operating instructions internally from their genes and externally from chemicals and electrical signals emitted rigidly by other cells. Unable to believe that any machine can be designed that contains an instruction library which anticipates all the mishaps and glitches of a billion years of evolution without crashing over and over again, I began almost three decades ago to search for signs that the cell was actually a 'smart' machine. In other words, I looked for experimental evidence that cells contained a signal integration system that allowed them to sense, weigh and process huge numbers of signals from outside and inside their bodies and to make decisions on their own.Under what circumstances would a cell reveal that it is 'intelligent'?
I thought that the best place to start searching was the field of cell movement. A moving cell has to operate its own body in sophisticated ways and, in addition, may have to navigate in space and time while dealing with numerous unforeseeable events, such as encounters with other cells and other objects that its genome could not possibly have anticipated. I think that cell motility, indeed, revealed cell intelligence. — Guenter Albrecht-Buehler, Cell Intelligence
Thank you so much for writing!