20 ms·
Brains are not required to think or solve problems – simple cells can do it
- febed 3y agoMichael Levin is seeking answers to seemingly basic biology questions. I’m a layperson but how come mainstream biologists didn’t pursue this line of thinking as far as he has?
- efitz 3y agoThis is great news given the relative scarcity of brains among humans.
- nmstoker 3y agoThis is a little like the 60s experiment teaching what I believe were nematodes to arch their backs in response to a light shone by the researchers. Those nematodes were ground up and fed to new untrained nematodes which then acquired the back arching response. Can't find the original paper but it was covered in the 1984 book The Science in Science Fiction.
- yamrzou 3y agohttps://archive.is/SxCaF https://archive.is/SxCaF
- inglor_cz 3y agoMichael Levin is a rare example of a scientist who really thinks outside the box and goes wherever few have gone before.
- teekert 3y agoI've been listening a lot to Sean Caroll's mindscape podcast [0]. In it they have this notion of complex-to-intelligent systems. Their loose definition is that such systems can hold an internal state that represents the world around them. A sort of model to interact with and to extrapolate future events from (time travel!). In this light consciousness also makes more sense to me, although consciousness feels more like a by-product, our (human) ability to hold an internal model of the world in our minds and interact with it, is pretty advanced. One can imagine, somehow in the feedback loops (I think, that she thinks, that I think, that she thinks, ...), something like consciousness (awareness [a model?] of the self in the world?) evolved. Anyway, cells can hold (super) primitive models of the world and maintain internal balance in the face of anticipated events. I'm just a cocktail philosopher, but aren't we all. [0] https://podverse.fm/podcast/e42yV38oN https://podverse.fm/podcast/e42yV38oN
- bcherny 3y agoThis is one of Hofstadter’s big ideas that he explored in his main work: GEB, Mind’s I, and I am a Strange Loop. The latter is a good intro to his work.
- jebarker 3y agoI'm also a cocktail philosopher, but isn't consciousness different to just having a model of the world and self within it? Consciousness is the lived experience. The world model and feeling of self appear in consciousness. I think a complex system could plausibly be conscious without having a belief of a self within it. Not sure if consciousness is possible without any world model though. My impressions about this were strongly influenced by Sam Harris's Waking Up book and app.
- teekert 3y agoI agree that "consciousness is different to just having a model of the world and self within it" indeed. I'm just saying it feels like that modelling ability (which has clear and major evolutionary advantages) is a step towards consciousness, indeed something in the now (as we experience it). A (near) real-time model perhaps that constantly projects and adjusts. I guess this still doesn't require consciousness, but maybe consciousness results from this? Does it require a sense of "now" and identity relative to the world model? I feel like the matrix is about the eject me btw. Thanx, I'm looking for Harris' books right now.
- krzat 3y agoMixing consciousness with cognition is a mistake, Imagine a conscious experience of constant redness and nothing else, is there any intelligence needed for this?
- teekert 3y agoI think all these term are too loaded and deep to answer your question, almost all words in the sentences we exchange are subject to subtle interpretation and definition differences. I still enjoy the process though, which perhaps also doesn't require consciousness, yet here I am.
- bugbuddy 3y agoThis finding gives more supporting evidence to professor Chemero’s Radical Embodied Cognition. This is a very interesting interview he gave that covered a lot of his ideas: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vxT1RQICM_8 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vxT1RQICM_8
- Narciss 3y ago"All intelligence is really collective intelligence, because every cognitive system is made of some kind of parts" - that's exactly the basis for the popularity theory of consciousness, which deduces that not only humans are conscious (and plants and other animals, etc), but also the global human society can have a sort of consciousness. https://consciousness.social https://consciousness.social
- Kinrany 3y agoThis seems to confuse intelligence with consciousness?
- Narciss 3y agoI meant to say that they have the same root - you can think of consciousness as (collective) intelligence put to use in a particular domain: the self, or the "what it is like to be". If certain basic units of the collective intelligence contribute to that sense of self, you can get consciousness. consciousness.social aims to provide a living example of that.
- distortionfield 3y agoI find it really interesting how many times this distinction has been made (from each side to the other and vice versa) in just this thread.
- moffkalast 3y agoMakes sense, we're all just the proverbial neurons of the brain that is our entire society/planet. Yeah, this is really big brain time. Then a collection of societies would be another level of meta-intelligence above that, it's all fractal.
- Narciss 3y agoExactly - multizoa theory describes the global human society as an organism made of many animals (multi zoa means many animals)/ And then multizoa organisms can evolve once they reproduce, via processes like establishing colonies on other planets. Who knows what kind of multizoa consciousness, i.e. sense of social self these human societies would come to evolve given enough evolution via the process of multizoa natural selection? In that sense, consciousness.social is like the glimmer of a proto-consciousness for multizoa organisms. The first sparks of a multizoa-level sense of self, that could evolve down multizoa generations into something as complex as human consciousness, but at the multizoa level. Brain numbing stuff.
- Sparkyte 3y agoBrains are for complex tasks linked by a series of simple problems handled by simple cells. It is a network.
- rini17 3y agoMaybe that's the Great Filter? All sentient beings must get rid of their brains and associated baggage to progress further.
- ivan_gammel 3y agoI have a little problem understanding why this article is dated by February 1, 2024. Is it an UX bug and they show the date of the print issue, did it come from the future or my clock are off by a week?
- gigglesupstairs 3y agoYeah it’s likely the magazine issue date. Bad UX but not a bug.
- evrimoztamur 3y agoI am still struggling with my central question (I read this to be the 'hard question') of why I am currently occupying the body that I am as an observer, and not another one, or perhaps even none. Does anybody have some cursory reading about this subject?
- bowsamic 3y agoI'm also stuck on the same thing. Why am I me and not someone or something else? I feel like most are just going to laugh at this question as completely obvious, but for me it's almost a deep sense of angst and awe. It used to keep me up at night.
- evrimoztamur 3y agoI suppose I am at the beginning of asking this question out loud, and it has brought on some interesting discussions with my friends and family. Although nobody has a clear answer on this subject (globally it seems, not only in the local one I'm exploring), the variety of answers and debates it has led to has been very exciting. On the other hand, I am a bit disappointed that none has been able to bring anything more insightful than I could find via exploring the possibilities by digging around on Wikipedia. In fact, one question that I had been wondering, which is, at what point does an analogous conscious experience appear in terms of the quantum to human scale of complexity, has been asked already in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F by Thomas Nagel. I still wonder what it is like to be a planarian, or a fly on the wall of a board meeting (audio fidelity must suck).
- dspillett 3y agoMy reading (caveat: not a biologist, other sort of scientist, nor philosopher) is that a brain is required to translate the environment and its collection of problems into something (or some things) that its simpler structures can “solve” (where “solve” could just mean “act usefully in response to” and that act/response could be to ignore), and then to translate any responses but out to that more complex environment. Cells can solve problems in their limited context, though that context can be less limited than you might first think (consider single celled life can have relatively complex interactions). Groups of cells can solve more complex problems, by working directly together or by some acting as support structures while others do the solving. Complex bodies and brains build up in parts from there over time.
- mobiuscog 3y agoSo brains are required for multi-modality, but not actual 'intelligence' ? (Herein everyone screams at my misuse of terms and tells me I'm wrong - which at least should help explain things)
- agumonkey 3y agoInteresting to see Levin's zeitgeist spreading (even though considering the amount of podcast and discussions he made explains that too). I don't know what the biological/medical field thought about single cell and tissue level intelligence before but I found this gap in the usual medical thinking (usually things are either genetic or biochemical/hormonal) quite mind blowing. Hopefully this results in new opportunities for finer medical therapies.
- feverzsj 3y agoI remember some TED guy talked about consciousness being basic substance around us, and the brain just concentrates them to make it significant.
- Daniel_sk 3y agoThat's the theory of Panpsychism.
- bdhcuidbebe 3y agoThere’s so much nonsense on the TED stage. They even allowed Graham Hancock.
- nottorp 3y agoHow is that new? Maybe if you've never heard about evolution :) All living beings have some kind of nervous system that has the control. Some have it concentrated somewhere - we call that a 'brain'. Simpler organisms have it everywhere in their body.
- ovi256 3y agoHe's literally investigating the nuances and limits of what you describe in your second paragraph. Yes, the outline you described is obvious.
- apienx 3y ago> “Indeed, the very act of living is by default a cognitive state, Lyon says. Every cell needs to be constantly evaluating its surroundings, making decisions about what to let in and what to keep out and planning its next steps. Cognition didn't arrive later in evolution. It's what made life possible.“ Yes. Cognition isn’t just about solving differential equations and the like. It also refers to the most basic functions/processes such as perception and evaluation.
- DrStormyDaniels 3y agoIs perception and evaluation a basic function? By analogy with cellular life, maybe. But I think this abstraction hides more than it reveals.
- max_ 3y agoI have a question. Doesn't the complexity of the problems it can possibly solve vary from cell to brain. Or is it like a turing machine where a simple abstraction can solve any possible "computable" problem?
- teekert 3y agoI guess a ("simple") molecular biological mechanism can be Turing complete, but if it's as slow as a mechanical ticker tape, the mechanism will be too slow to respond to any inputs in a relevant time frame. The speed of the response is important in an evolutionary context.
- zer00eyz 3y agoSLime molds!!!! Slime molds can get very large as a single cell, visible to the naked eye weighing in at several pounds large: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxogastria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myxogastria It says 44 pounds.... that's pretty chunky for a "cell"
- iandanforth 3y agoThere are a couple traps to be aware of with this article. 1. "Bioelectricity" This is a generic term which doesn't capture the nuance of charge gradients and chemical gradients in cells. While you can directly apply charges to interact with gradient based biological systems, this is a brute force method. Cells have chemically selective walls. So while applying an external electrical voltage can act in a similar manner as causing a neuron to fire, it is far less precise than the calcium and sodium channel mediated depolarization which implements normal firing. Said another way 'bioelectricity' is not simple. 2. Replacement This one is a bit more subtle. If you find that you can affect a system by one means that is not the same thing as saying the means is the cause. Take the example of using RNA to transfer memory from one Aplysia to another. Immediately after transfer the recipient does not have the memory. It takes time for the introduced RNA to affect sensory cells so that they become more sensitive to stimulation. This is in contrast to a trained animal that has already undergone synaptic remodeling. If you have the appropriate synapses but were somehow able to remove all the relevant RNA in an instant, the animal would continue to 'remember' its training. Synapses are sufficient. In reality there are multiple systems that work together over multiple timescales to produce the behaviors we observe. Some of those systems can have their contributions mimicked by other interventions. Because of this complexity you can never say 'it's really about X', the best you can say is 'X plays a major role' or 'X contributes Y percent to this observed phenomenon'.
- RaftPeople 3y ago> This is in contrast to a trained animal that has already undergone synaptic remodeling. If you have the appropriate synapses but were somehow able to remove all the relevant RNA in an instant, the animal would continue to 'remember' its training. Synapses are sufficient. Not if you removed the DNA. Epigenetic changes to the DNA are what maintain the synapse at it's "learned" state. Here's a link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022035800 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S240584402... In addition, research has shown neurons communicating via mRNA (surrounded by a lipid). https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00492-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-00492-w https://www.inverse.com/article/40113-arc-protein-ancient-mouse-brain-rna-capsid https://www.inverse.com/article/40113-arc-protein-ancient-mo... Lots of interesting stuff in this arena.
- kfrzcode 3y agoMakes me think about Michael Levin et. al, working on understanding bioelectromechanics.... Fascinating stuff https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG6GIzNM0aM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hG6GIzNM0aM
- Arjuna144 3y agoThis is just incredible! I follow Michael Leavin since quite a while now and I am sure that he will earn a Nobel Price for this outstanding research! All the other things that he adresses in his Presentations and also Interviews are just mindblowing!(the one with Lex Fridman is quite in depth, but I prefer others even more) This really has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of intelligence, mind and medicine. He may just tell cells to grow a new heart without modifying genes. He want to have what he calls an 'anatomical compiler' which translates our "designs" to electro-magnetic cell stimuli so that they will build this. For me this is really pointing into a worldview that is much more in line with view that the ancient mystics from all cultures throughout all the ages have been pointing towards: Intelligence is something fundamental to existance, like space and time (maybe even more fundamental). It is all a play of intelligence, it is phenomenal and it can be tapped into. This is amazing!!!
- saurabhpandit26 3y agoMicheal levin is just incredible, he appears on lot of podcasts on Youtube. His work on collective intelligence of cells, xenobots and regeneration is just mind boggling.
- naasking 3y agoBrains are not required to solve problems, yes, but they are required to think. That's one of their defining characteristics. It's not a thought without something like a brain, at best it's a pre-programmed/pre-trained behavioural response.
- dimal 3y agoThat’s misunderstanding what they’re saying. If you watch some of Michael Levin’s talks on YouTube, he specifically uses William James’ definition of intelligence (Intelligence is a fixed goal with variable means of achieving it) and has experimentally shown this capability at cellular scales. He shows how it cannot be pre-programmed behavior. There seems to be goal directed behavior.
- naasking 3y ago> (Intelligence is a fixed goal with variable means of achieving it) and has experimentally shown this capability at cellular scales. Supposing I accept that, what does this have to do with thought, which is the claim that I was specifically responding to? Does Levin or James also show that this can only be done by having thoughts? Edit: for instance, as opposed to having some non-thinking process like gradient descent, or more plausibly, some kind of hill climbing.
- dimal 3y agoI agree, it’s not ”thinking” in the way brains think, but I was just disagreeing with the assertion that it’s “just” pre-programmed. He’s shown pretty convincingly that these phenomena can not be preprogrammed. He’s put organisms in novel developmental states that never exist in nature and shown that the cells work around the problems he gives them to build up a working body. I think if you get stuck on “thinking”, yeah it’s not thinking, but it’s some sort of cognition that is above simple optimization. I honestly think if you (or anyone) watches one of his talks it will blow your mind. Prior to watching his talks, I would have said pretty much the same thing as you, but his work completely upended my view of biology. He’s basically breaking down how we get from “just physics” to a working organism and finding a lot of surprising things. Unfortunately, there’s way more information than I can condense into a comment.
- photochemsyn 3y agoNext stage in AI? > According to Bongard, that's because these AIs are, in a sense, too heady. “If you play with these AIs, you can start to see where the cracks are. And they tend to be around things like common sense and cause and effect, which points toward why you need a body. If you have a body, you can learn about cause and effect because you can cause effects. But these AI systems can't learn about the world by poking at it.”
- swayvil 3y agoComplexity, tho dazzling and impressive, is apparently a small trick. Consider the simple algorithms that generate fractals, alife and random numbers. Problem-solving intelligence appears to be similar in that we consider it impressive and special, but, in the big scheme, is actually rather trivial and common. Speaking as a person who has spent literally decades enthusiastically chewing upon software design riddles, it makes me feel a bit insectile. I mean, the termites in my walls probably feel what I feel, and they're just playing with mud and spit.
- deadbabe 3y agoWater can solve a maze!
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoThis is pretty similar to concept in "Children of Time" Adrian Tchaikovsky. I've always thought the concept in the book of 'DNA' memory storage, was SCI-FI. Cool concept, but really far out. So this is pretty exciting that this Sci-Fi concept could happen. What if we could drink something to give us the memories of someone else. And this would be way to drink a 'degree', and learn a ton fast. "Glanzman was able to transfer a memory of an electric shock from one sea slug to another by extracting RNA from the brains of shocked slugs and injecting it into the brains of new slugs. The recipients then “remembered” to recoil from the touch that preceded the shock. If RNA can be a medium of memory storage, any cell might have the ability, not just neurons."
- rootusrootus 3y agoThat explains so much about HN.
- aubanel 3y ago"Brains are not required to think or solve problems" is a perfect intro to a Leetcode job interview, for a candidate that already grokked 300 of these problems.
- zubairq 3y agoMakes sense that brains are not required to solve problems. I am not brainy but seem to be able to brute force my way to solve some complex problems by sheer force of will
- maxglute 3y agoFeels like Peter Watt's Blindsight, conciousness not needed for advanced problem solving, and may actually hinder.
- AlienRobot 3y agoInteresting. What if the brain is leaving a "footprint" on the cells of the nervous system, and it's possible to recover the brain by making a mold of this footprint?
- schwarzrules 3y agoThis is reassuring. I never thought I'd be able to think or solve problems, but this gives me hope!