Do Cells know they're part of something bigger?

Maybe that's what all that 'junk' DNA is for

This is quite in line with the more "spiritual" aspects of Lovelock and Margulis's Gaia Hypothesis. Not necessarily anthropomorphically conscious, but a planetary "living system" more than the sum of all its parts. I think Lovelock pushed it more into the metaphysical or philosophical realm than Margulis did. However, a short but informative read would be her "Symbiotic Planet" which lays out her ideas very similar to your speculation.

I was conducting a research on this subject matter for my daughter science fair and I can refer you to some articles:
1. The mistery of Embryo Development- P&S journal-Documents the research of Dr. Stern on chick embryos and how when he transplanted part of a chick embryo into another, the only portion of the embryo derived from the graft were the internal organs. All of the new embryo's nervous system and epidermis were derived from the surrounding cells of the host-embryo cells that normally are fated to be placenta, amnion or skin.2. Microgravity news, NASA, Spring 2000-About Dr. Robert Akins research were he found out:" Cells isolated from rat hearths were able to regenerate aspects of the very thing that is disrupted in congenital heart disease:tissue structure. They did this without any external cues from us, which was very exciting..the cells themselves showed an intrinsic ability to restablish structure"3. Dr. Lipton-contends that the notion that the nucleus and its genes are the "brain" of the cell is an untenable hypotesis since if the nucleus was the brain of the cell, then its removal would result in the cessation of cell functions and immediate cell death. However, experimentally enuclated cells may survive for two or more months with out genes, and yet are capable of effecting complex responses to enviromental and cytoplasmic stimuli..4. Minimal Cognition in Unicellular Organisms--Franco Di Primio5. Behaviour of the Lower Orgasnisms- H.S. Jennings6. Intelligence under the Microscope, Dr. Simon King.

I do believe this to be the case, though I beginning to think all theories of consciousness will forever fall just outside the descriptive capabilities of methodological naturalism, and for that reason the properties of consciousness will never be fully subject to scientific investigation.Consider this, however: Where is your consciousness located in your body? Commonly persons respond that their consciousness is locked up tightly in their skull, married to their brain. Seems reasonable enough, no? Yet if we were to dissect a human brian, nowhere could one point and say "there's the consciousness," and nowhere could you find the contents of a single thought, idea, or emotion.The simple facts are that you are the cells -- all of them -- and you are conscious. There is no boundary in your body that says "these cells hold your consciousness, and those beyond here do not." The brain is not isolated from the rest of the body, nor is it even truly isolated from the rest of the universe, and neither is your consciousness isolated at one place within it.Placing your finger upon a hot plate, you are aware of its heat because the cells at the end of your finger are. That awareness is communicated throughout the body in various ways, and the variety of cells in the body each respond individually in accordance with their particular identity.Do they know that they are part of something bigger? Hmmm... I dunno... do YOU think you are part of something bigger? I'd say that just as some humans do and some humans don't, some cells do and some cells don't. But it doesn't matter, though. The cells are themselves, just as you are yourself. They fulfill their own purposes and in doing so they simultaneously fulfill YOUR purposes for the purposes are the same. In a way, their awareness is transparent to your own. So likewise, if you fulfill your own purposes to the best of your abilities, you will also simultaneously fulfill the purposes of the great pyramid gestalt consciousness of which we are all part, and to which our awarenesses are all transparent.(cue Twilight Zone theme)

quote:

---

Consider this, however: Where is your consciousness located in your body? Commonly persons respond that their consciousness is locked up tightly in their skull, married to their brain. Seems reasonable enough, no? Yet if we were to dissect a human brian, nowhere could one point and say "there's the consciousness," and nowhere could you find the contents of a single thought, idea, or emotion.

---

Funny I thought it was common for guillotine victims' heads to
remain conscious for a short time after separation, while the
body was a life-less hulk. Suggests consciuosness seated in
the head somewhere. Not entirely sure of my facts there though
I admit.I do know that when certain types of brain function cease,
then consciousness is no longer evident (i.e. brain death)
while the rest of the body can be kept going indefinitely.One could remove chunks of body from all over (without killing
the subject) without affecting functions normally associated
with consciousness, but only a few grammes of the ole' grey
matter (from the right spot) can alter emotional response,
linguistic ability, and thought processess in general.If that doesn't suggest consciousness seated in the brain
I don't know what does.

Anyone read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams, he explores this, and it gives some really creative thoughts on prabability, evolution and God. Check it out.
-Brad

And we know this from the post execution interviews do we?Actually, until that post up a way by ae I would have agreed with the consciousness being in the brain. However it made me think a bit. (ouch! )Some of our emotions and reactions are controlled by hormones that originate in glands outside the head. I think these are also part of what it is to be "conscious" (whatever the h... that is). So it might be true that some part of what contributes to being conscieous is outside the head.A point that seems to have been missed is that many take consciousness is an emergent property. (most of the brain only). I think that a brain is enough to allow the property to emerge and it is also necessary. But a little more is added by parts of us outside of the brain perhaps.If it is an emergent property we will not "find it" by disecting us down to individual cells. Nor do the individual cells need to have the tiniest bit of consciousness in any of them for it to emerge from the assemblage of all of them.

I beg to differ. There's a significant field of research that deals with what areas of the brain handle what areas of thought. It's called "neurology."For instance if I damage certain areas of your brain I can make you forget words, be unable to recognize faces (even your close relatives), or cause amazing change to your emotions.

Yes, Crash you are partially right. I stand partially corrected. What you won't find is "you". The 'youness' may be heavily located in the frontal lobes but that isn't all there is too it (I don't think). You certainly won't find it if you look at smaller pieces.And all the research you mention gives us building blocks. Verb handling, face recognition, vertical line dicernment, etc etc. However, by the time we are there we are below the level of consciousness or "youness".

---

Common sense isn't

Well, I had thought that we knew it via an experiment conducted by the famous executed chemist Lavoisier, but a little googling turned that up as a myth...You are apparently right to be sceptical. Most of the stories seem apocryphal. I found this illuminating article: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.dolphin.soton.ac.uk/Feb2003/expert.htmlWell, I know I've made the case before that conciousness is a linguistic phenomenon, and I've not heard anything to disuade me...

Well I did say I wasn't sure of the facts with the guillotine
thing ... but the other comments stand.The hormonal contribution is just an input to the brain function
though. The levels and types of hormone do't affect consciousness
only expression of consciousness (I don't think that's the same,
but ...)And as far as removing it .... doesn't a frontal lobotomy
leave someone in a pretty vegitative/unresponsive state?Yes, consciousness is an emergent property, and yes, outside
'data' can influence 'operating mode' ... but the brain
is a real-time system aimed at dealing with the outside world
so it has to have inputs from it.Aren't most mode changes initiated by the brain -- transmittedvia the nerves to cause other body parts to act in a way that
e.g. produces more or less of a particular hormone?I know at least some hormonal responses are local (corpus luteum
generates hormonal changes to signal pregnancy is established
for example), but they are indicative inputs to inform the
brain how to proceed -- not part of the consciousness.

I don't know that most of them are... I was under the impression that most endocrine response is triggered by signal hormones from the pituitary gland. Some glands must be under direct nervous control (besides the pituitary), like the adrenals, in order to react fast enough, but I thought that was the exception rather than the rule. I think you're right. To include endocrine function as part of conciousness is to open a door that leads to literally the entire environment - everything that conciousness responds to - as a part of conciousness. That's hardly useful.

Well ... that seems to have put a stop to it all.I have wondered, though, whether multicellular organisms
can be considered to be highly dependent colonies, with
individuality being an emergent property.I think cell differentiation might put the kibosh on that
though.

Sure. In fact isn't individuality always an emergent property? Everything we can experience is made of something else. Eventually, yes, you get down to some component of matter that is itself individual, but that's pretty far down.

Now that you mention it ... well yeah.