7 ms·

Single-celled organism has evolved a natural mechanical computer

61 points by vijayr02 5y ago

ryankrage77 5y ago
Article is cut off in the third paragraph. archive.is and archive.org versions don't fare any better.
- kkylin 5y ago
  The video told me most of what I wanted to know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzAoJzlkzZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzAoJzlkzZ4 Article has a link to the lab, which may have more information (I didn't check).
- adrian_b 5y ago
  The real article is on Biorxiv: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v3
gene-h 5y ago
This article appears to be based on this article in bioRxiv[0]. It references some supplementary videos, so perhaps it's in some work that is yet unpublished? [0]https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v4 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v4
taylorius 5y ago
Using microtubules. Very interesting. The same structures found in our brains, and posited by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff as being key to consciousness. Penrose proposes that they are using some previously unknown quantum phenomenon to kickstart our conscious minds - but whatever their internal workings, if they can act as computational devices, estimates for our brains' computational power must rise by several orders of magnitude.
- taberiand 5y ago
  Is there a good scientific explanation why quantum phenomena are required to explain consciousness? Or in other words, is there a reason to rule out consciousness as a natural emergent property of the macro-level structure and composition of our brains, without delving into the quantum realm (beyond what is necessary to explain the operation of the cells themselves)?
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    We're just stuck at a dead end as regards the hard problem of consciousness. Quantum theory appeared to have potential because of the apparent links between consciousness / observation and wave-function collapse. This may not help. The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. I don't think this helps either. If I had to take a punt I'd say that we can't find a solution because it's the substrate of everything, so by definition can't be measured by us.
    - kbd 5y ago
      > The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. > because it’s the substrate of everything Recommend checking out Bernardo Kastrup (two PhDs, many books and videos on YouTube) who argues that mind is fundamental.
      - bencollier49 5y ago
        > That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. They do it by changing the meaning of the word "consciousness" so that they can then show that this new thing they've defined doesn't exist. It's a remarkable strawman.
        loopz 5y ago
        If consciousness doesn't exist, who is it that can disprove it, and why should anyone listen? It's a bit like proving the universe is a simulation or not. These can never be proved or disproved. It's quite silly to deny consciousness though! It's similar to deny one's existence. So philosophy and psychology shines some light on these questions.

61 points by vijayr02 5y ago

ryankrage77 5y ago

Article is cut off in the third paragraph. archive.is and archive.org versions don't fare any better.

kkylin 5y ago
The video told me most of what I wanted to know: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzAoJzlkzZ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzAoJzlkzZ4 Article has a link to the lab, which may have more information (I didn't check).
adrian_b 5y ago
The real article is on Biorxiv: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v3 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v3

gene-h 5y ago

This article appears to be based on this article in bioRxiv[0]. It references some supplementary videos, so perhaps it's in some work that is yet unpublished? [0]https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v4 https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.26.433123v4

taylorius 5y ago

Using microtubules. Very interesting. The same structures found in our brains, and posited by Roger Penrose and Stuart Hammeroff as being key to consciousness. Penrose proposes that they are using some previously unknown quantum phenomenon to kickstart our conscious minds - but whatever their internal workings, if they can act as computational devices, estimates for our brains' computational power must rise by several orders of magnitude.

taberiand 5y ago
Is there a good scientific explanation why quantum phenomena are required to explain consciousness? Or in other words, is there a reason to rule out consciousness as a natural emergent property of the macro-level structure and composition of our brains, without delving into the quantum realm (beyond what is necessary to explain the operation of the cells themselves)?
- bencollier49 5y ago
  We're just stuck at a dead end as regards the hard problem of consciousness. Quantum theory appeared to have potential because of the apparent links between consciousness / observation and wave-function collapse. This may not help. The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. I don't think this helps either. If I had to take a punt I'd say that we can't find a solution because it's the substrate of everything, so by definition can't be measured by us.
  - kbd 5y ago
    > The current zeitgeist appears to be denial that consciousness exists at all. That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. > because it’s the substrate of everything Recommend checking out Bernardo Kastrup (two PhDs, many books and videos on YouTube) who argues that mind is fundamental.
    - bencollier49 5y ago
      > That’s odd, arguably it’s the one thing we know exists. They do it by changing the meaning of the word "consciousness" so that they can then show that this new thing they've defined doesn't exist. It's a remarkable strawman.
      - loopz 5y ago
        If consciousness doesn't exist, who is it that can disprove it, and why should anyone listen? It's a bit like proving the universe is a simulation or not. These can never be proved or disproved. It's quite silly to deny consciousness though! It's similar to deny one's existence. So philosophy and psychology shines some light on these questions.