Researchers: Living Cells’ Cognition Drives Evolution

Researchers: Living Cells’ Cognition Drives Evolution

Denyse O'Leary

An interesting paper this month at Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology argues not only that living cells are cognitive (that is, in some sense, they think), but that their thinking is the basis of evolution.

Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBE) is clearly a form of panpsychism — but with a twist. Miller et al. don’t say cells are “conscious,” but rather that they are cognitive: That is, cells use, and always did use, information to engage in purposeful behavior, much as a magpie or a frog would. “Cognitive” is a more helpful term for scientists because arguments around the concept of consciousness in the human sense need not apply to merely purposeful behavior, which can be observed and discussed externally.

I don't see how this claim follows? You can have cognition at the cellular level while still not claiming consciousness is spread through reality.

Sadly the actual paper is behind a paywall, but you can read part of it for free:

Biology in the 21st century: Natural selection is cognitive selection

William B. Miller Jr., František Baluška, Arthur S. Reber, Predrag Slijepčević

Natural selection has a formal definition as the natural process that results in the survival and reproductive success of individuals or groups best adjusted to their environment, leading to the perpetuation of those genetic qualities best suited to that organism's environmental niche. Within conventional Neo-Darwinism, the largest source of those variations that can be selected is presumed to be secondary to random genetic mutations. As these arise, natural selection sustains adaptive traits in the context of a 'struggle for existence'. Consequently, in the 20th century, natural selection was generally portrayed as the primary evolutionary driver. The 21st century offers a comprehensive alternative to Neo-Darwinian dogma within Cognition-Based Evolution. The substantial differences between these respective evolutionary frameworks have been most recently articulated in a revision of Crick's Central Dogma, a former centerpiece of Neo-Darwinism. The argument is now advanced that the concept of natural selection should also be comprehensively reappraised. Cognitive selection is presented as a more precise term better suited to 21st century biology. Since cognition began with life's origin, natural selection represents cognitive selection.

Researchers: Living Cells’ Cognition Drives Evolution

Denyse O'Leary



I don't see how this claim follows? You can have cognition at the cellular level while still not claiming consciousness is spread through reality.

Sadly the actual paper is behind a paywall, but you can read part of it for free:

Biology in the 21st century: Natural selection is cognitive selection

William B. Miller Jr., František Baluška, Arthur S. Reber, Predrag Slijepčević

This idea that cellular cognition drives evolution is a sure loser - it's even incoherent, something dreamed up to try to overcome the current bankruptcy of neo-Darwinistic RM+NS. All the new theory does is to claim a somehow preexistent cognitive capability in cells without proposing how that mechanism (surely very complex) came about in the beginning. Surely there was a time before cells at all - this theory can't explain the biggest problem of all - the origin of life in the first place, before there was anything like "cognitive selection". Presumably the proponents of this new theory would claim that the OOL itself must have brought the first cells into existence already with this cognitive mechanism, ignoring the failure of OOL research to come up with any plausible abiogenic chemical theory.

But the most important point is that "cognitive selection" (being a non-conscious data processing sort of capability) is utterly incapable of overcoming the problems the ID movement has long showed to invalidate conventional RM+NS neo-Darwininsm, primarily the prevalence of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms, the inevitable tendency of RM+NS to degrade the genome, the "wait time" problem, and perhaps the best of all, the prevalence in the fossil record of Darwinistically-inexplicable rapid innovative jumps or "explosions", the most prominent being the Cambrian. All of these problems and more absolutely require macroevolution to have had a directing intelligence that can design, plan, visualize, and have foresight.

I don't see how this claim follows? You can have cognition at the cellular level while still not claiming consciousness is spread through reality.

Without having read the article, I'm not sure exactly how cognition is being defined. However, it's clear that consciousness isn't just a binary phenomenon. It’s not simply a matter of being conscious or not. We need to consider levels of consciousness. For example, a newborn may possess a basic form of consciousness, but it's clearly not at the same level as that of an adult. This is evident in their reduced capacity for learning compared to adults (children, for instance, don't recognize their own image in a mirror before the age of two) and their inability to form episodic memories. Similarly, the 'consciousness' of a single cell, if it exists at all, would be extremely limited.

This idea that cellular cognition drives evolution is a sure loser - it's even incoherent, something dreamed up to try to overcome the current bankruptcy of neo-Darwinistic RM+NS. All the new theory does is to claim a somehow preexistent cognitive capability in cells without proposing how that mechanism (surely very complex) came about in the beginning. Surely there was a time before cells at all - this theory can't explain the biggest problem of all - the origin of life in the first place, before there was anything like "cognitive selection". Presumably the proponents of this new theory would claim that the OOL itself must have brought the first cells into existence already with this cognitive mechanism, ignoring the failure of OOL research to come up with any plausible abiogenic chemical theory.

But the most important point is that "cognitive selection" (being a non-conscious data processing sort of capability) is utterly incapable of overcoming the problems the ID movement has long showed to invalidate conventional RM+NS neo-Darwininsm, primarily the prevalence of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms, the inevitable tendency of RM+NS to degrade the genome, the "wait time" problem, and perhaps the best of all, the prevalence in the fossil record of Darwinistically-inexplicable rapid innovative jumps or "explosions", the most prominent being the Cambrian. All of these problems and more absolutely require macroevolution to have had a directing intelligence that can design, plan, visualize, and have foresight.

I don't have the biology background to assess these claims, but it seems to me ID even if true is not getting much leverage outside a very small camp of academics. Many academics seem to hope, like they do for parapsychology, that the field with die with its current older adherents.

This alternative may ultimately unify with ID, but my guess is the appearance of cognition has to be argued for step by step. A few years ago even animal consciousness was more contested than it is today, and so going as far back as cells may be as far as you can push academia currently.

I don't think we really know, without asking, what the beliefs of the study authors are regarding the question of how cells arose.

Without having read the article, I'm not sure exactly how cognition is being defined. However, it's clear that consciousness isn't just a binary phenomenon. It’s not simply a matter of being conscious or not. We need to consider levels of consciousness. For example, a newborn may possess a basic form of consciousness, but it's clearly not at the same level as that of an adult. This is evident in their reduced capacity for learning compared to adults (children, for instance, don't recognize their own image in a mirror before the age of two) and their inability to form episodic memories. Similarly, the 'consciousness' of a single cell, if it exists at all, would be extremely limited.

I think it's fine that cells are conscious/cognitive, but I just don't think that's widespread enough to be called "Panpsychism".

Cells are just too small a part of this universe, or even this planet relatively speaking, for their possible cognition to be Panpsychic. IMO anyway.

I don't have the biology background to assess these claims, but it seems to me ID even if true is not getting much leverage outside a very small camp of academics. Many academics seem to hope, like they do for parapsychology, that the field with die with its current older adherents.

This alternative may ultimately unify with ID, but my guess is the appearance of cognition has to be argued for step by step. A few years ago even animal consciousness was more contested than it is today, and so going as far back as cells may be as far as you can push academia currently.

I don't think we really know, without asking, what the beliefs of the study authors are regarding the question of how cells arose.

I assume you are referring to my summary of the major problems of Darwinism as found by ID researchers. Myself, I think that these claims are quite accessible to non-specialists in biology, being at base fairly easy to grasp.

Concerning the hope of the Darwinists that ID will just "die away", I don't think so. The Discovery Institute is doing fine and even expanding its public reach with more ways of communication, and it turns out that more and more academics are seriously questioning Darwinism probably at least partially as a result of the efforts of the DI (they would of course deny this).

Miller et. al. has been floating the idea of the intelligent cell for some time. I found this free article which I will read when I have time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...-01125.pdf

Miller et. al. has been floating the idea of the intelligent cell for some time. I found this free article which I will read when I have time: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...-01125.pdf

According to the Abstract of this paper, it proposes pretty much what I responded to in my post, and my response would be the same. It is an invalid even incoherent last ditch attempt to shore up natural selection and neo-Darwinism from the great problems they have been found to have, with something that only superficially approaches panpsychism without the metaphysical aspect. The new theory is really very different and is still welded to physicalism.

According to the Abstract of this paper, it proposes pretty much what I responded to in my post, and my response would be the same. It is an invalid even incoherent last ditch attempt to shore up natural selection and neo-Darwinism from the great problems they have been found to have, with something that only superficially approaches panpsychism without the metaphysical aspect. The new theory is really very different and is still welded to physicalism.

Your previous response presupposes that irreducible complexity invalidates the cognitive cell theory. However, irreducible complexity is specifically defined within the context of random mutation and natural selection. The cognitive cell theory, on the other hand, is an alternative to RM+NS that doesn't necessarily require intermediate forms in the same way. Therefore, using irreducible complexity to argue against this new theory is not valid, as it applies only within the RM+NS framework.

Similary the cognitive cell theory doesn't address how life originated in the first place, but it's important to note that irreducible complexity doesn't address this issue either. Both concepts focus on different aspects of biological complexity, with irreducible complexity being tied to the framework of random mutation and natural selection, and the cognitive cell theory offering an alternative perspective.

Your previous response presupposes that irreducible complexity invalidates the cognitive cell theory. However, irreducible complexity is specifically defined within the context of random mutation and natural selection. The cognitive cell theory, on the other hand, is an alternative to RM+NS that doesn't necessarily require intermediate forms in the same way. Therefore, using irreducible complexity to argue against this new theory is not valid, as it applies only within the RM+NS framework.

Similary the cognitive cell theory doesn't address how life originated in the first place, but it's important to note that irreducible complexity doesn't address this issue either. Both concepts focus on different aspects of biological complexity, with irreducible complexity being tied to the framework of random mutation and natural selection, and the cognitive cell theory offering an alternative perspective.

Here's a couple of excerpts from the Abstract:

"In CBE, evolutionary variation is the product of natural cellular engineering that permits purposive genetic adjustments as cellular problem-solving. CBE upholds that the cornerstone of biology is the intelligent measuring cell. Since all biological information that is available to cells is ambiguous, multicellularity arises from the cellular requirement to maximize the validity of available environmental information. This is best accomplished through collective measurement purposed towards maintaining and optimizing
individual cellular states of homeorhesis as dynamic flux that sustains cellular equipoise. The collective action of the multicellular measurement and assessment of information and its collaborative communication is natural cellular engineering.
.............................................
...genes are cellular tools. Selection filters cellular solutions to environmental stresses to assure continuous cellular-organismal-environmental complementarity."

And from the Introduction:

"This contribution to the Special Issue, Searching for Non-random Genome Editing Mechanisms, intends to defend the premise that non-random genome editing and other non-random genetic activities are credible and significant drivers of evolutionary development."

The authors propose cognitive cell theory as an alternative to RM+NS because they are finally starting to realize the drastic limitations and flaws of neo-Darwinism, but the new idea just won't work. They seem to be proposing that cells themselves contain a complicated mechanical system which is capable of responding collectively to immediately felt, not predicted future, environmental stresses in semi-intelligent ways. They even try to sneak natural selection back in at the end in order to somehow make the process more capable of adaptation.

This proposed natural cognition in cells is a failed idea from the start and even incoherent because it is not a natural conscious intelligence capable of the design of the countless irreducibly complex biological mechanisms found in life. In fact, it would seem that the complicated cellular cognition mechanism they are proposing would have to itself be irreducibly complex.

Irreducibly complex mechanisms have to be consciously designed - the design process inherently includes purpose and foresight - consciously imagining, inventing and planning a system of multiple interworking parts as a whole, foreseeing or looking ahead to see future problems, correcting the problems, etc. No way does this new quasi-panpsychist theory explain how the fact of the actual great prevalence in life of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms came to be. From the unconscious collective responses of individually semi-intelligent cells? I don't think so.

The concept of irreducibly complex biological mechanisms is not tied to the concept of RM+NS. IC is simply the observation of the existence of biological machines of great complexity consisting of multiple parts each and all of which are necessary for the mechanism to work, and in which the disruption or removal of any part causes the system to fail, sometimes in catastrophic ways. The real existence of countless such biological systems strongly implies intelligent design, to the exclusion of any other explanation, which implication merely includes RM+NS.