Luc Turpin

I believed we were still in the process of refining the definition or redefining consciousness.

Consciousness integrates both self-awareness and environmental awareness, shaping how we perceive reality. Mirror test in ants – M.A.B. de Waal and J.E.D.B. Lopez (2017). “Do ants have self-awareness? A review of mirror test studies”. Animal Cognition - Ants having blue markings were observed scratching the marked area, indicating some level of recognition of their reflection. In contrast, ants with brown markings did not show this behavior. Self-Recognition in Social Ants - Caravita, D. M., & Muñoz, J. M. O. (2020). "Chemical self-recognition in ants: An exploration of individual recognition in Formica." Animal Behavior Journal. Ants demonstrate an ability to recognize and respond to the chemical signatures of other ants, indicating a form of individual recognition. An interesting read: https://blog.animalogic.ca/blog/brainy-bees-and-self-conscious-ants-and-their-role-in-the-rise-of-the-machines Pollination Behaviors and Environmental Sensitivity - O’Connor, R. S., & Wratten, S. D. (2012). "Pollination behavior in bees: Environmental cues and decision-making." Ecological Entomology. This study examined how bees responded to a variety of environmental signals such as floral scent, color, and shape to make decisions about which flowers to pollinate. Bees Environmental sensitivity to Climate Change - Zanette, L., & Goulson, D. (2017). "Climate change and the behavior of pollinators." Nature Climate Change. Researchers examined how bees adapted their behavior to changing weather patterns and fluctuations in floral resources. Bees’ Sensory Responses to Environmental Cues - Giurfa, M., Sandoz, J. C., & Hannan, M. (2001). "Bee cognition and the role of sensory inputs in associative learning." Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Bees were conditioned to associate a specific odor with a food reward. The study revealed that bees are capable of learning and adapting to changes in their environment based on sensory inputs.

Consciousness integrates both self-awareness and environmental awareness, shaping how we perceive reality. While ants, unlike bees, have been shown to pass the self-awareness mirror test, bees exhibit remarkable environmental awareness. They navigate complex landscapes, evaluate flower options, and make swift decisions in a constantly changing environment. Although it hasn't been definitively shown that bees possess self-awareness, their keen awareness of their surroundings is undeniable.

Focusing on the issue rather than on me means you still need to explain how bees, lacking a central command or physical neural connections, are able to collectively exhibit more intelligence than individual bees. There's no chemical or electrical interaction between them—these processes are only present within each bee. I feel like you're still missing the point I'm trying to make.

Am I not correct in saying that in Newtonian physics, gravity is a force acting between masses, whereas in general relativity, it is described as the effect of curved spacetime caused by mass and energy? So, which term best applies to gravity—force, effect, property, or something else? Regardless of the label, it still acts upon masses, and that’s the key point and analogy I was trying to convey. We don’t have a clear answer at this point. Some believe consciousness is rooted in the brain, driven by chemicals and electrical activity, while others argue that its behavior goes beyond that, suggesting something more complex is at play. This isn’t about evolution having an agenda, but rather the possibility that consciousness is more complex and not solely rooted in the brain. You’re getting ahead of the conversation. If a swarm of bees, operating without a central command centre or physical connections, can generate significantly greater intelligence, it highlights an important insight into the nature of consciousness.

Consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence are closely interconnected, and understanding their relationships is essential to refining our definition of consciousness. It is neither devoid of intelligence nor easily observable. As I've suggested in previous posts, we may need to consider the possibility that consciousness operates as a force, influencing living matter in a way similar to gravity's effect on physical matter. Alternatively, as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes, consciousness could be a fundamental property that emerges when a system processes information in a highly integrated manner. It would not be a force, but a property. The shape remains a hexagon when the hive temperature plays its role in transforming circles into hexagons. This is not an illusion. Similarly, a force or property acting upon living matter to create consciousness or intelligence would not be an illusion, but a real entity. Interestingly, your argument suggests that consciousness, much like hexagons, naturally arises from the fabric of the world itself. So, our universe would be accidentaly fine tuned for consciousness? To truly understand consciousness, we must define it in a way that encompasses all related aspects, and not limiting ourselves to the brain alone as swarm intelligence appears to indicate.

To deepen our understanding of consciousness, it is essential to move beyond traditional definitions and investigate the relationships among consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence. This exploration invites us to consider alternative models of intelligence, such as swarm intelligence, which challenges the conventional brain-centric perspective. Swarm intelligence is illustrated in species like ants and bees, where individual organisms adhere to simple behavioral patterns. Despite their simplicity, the collective behavior of these groups generates complex, adaptive patterns that seem to exhibit intelligence. In this framework, intelligence does not arise from a central brain; rather, it emerges from the interactions between individual agents and their environment, enhanced by feedback loops and the sharing of information. This perspective suggests that intelligence within a swarm is not merely a product of individual minds or brains, but rather the result of decentralized, emergent interactions. A single organism within the swarm lacks the capacity for complex behavior on its own; instead, it is the collective dynamics of all members that give rise to sophisticated behaviors and problem-solving abilities. By examining these decentralized systems, we can gain valuable insights into the nature of intelligence and consciousness, broadening our understanding of what it means to be sentient. While individual ants exhibit simple behaviors, it is undoubtedly true that as a collective, they display a rich form of intelligence that hints at some sort of consciousness.

I strongly disagree! Don't get it!

How about all the references to studies I've already posted, which were mostly overlooked? It seems they were dismissed as irrelevant without being properly assessed.

The art of amplifying a thought to its extreme in order to ridicule or mock it. Now, is that a productive tactic in a good discussion? And just to add a little flair, how about downvoting this post too? It’s possible that nature is more alive and conscious than we initially thought, though not everything possesses life or awareness. In previous posts, I’ve provided numerous examples suggesting that nature is more alive than we once believed. As for consciousness, I’ve presented human experiences that seem perplexing when viewed through a purely brain-based lens, suggesting that there may be aspects of consciousness we don't yet understand—maybe, just maybe, there’s more to it than we think. I share some affinities with de Chardin, though not all of his ideas, particularly the noosphere. I’m also influenced by thinkers like Stapp, Josephson, Capra (expirential), Hameroff, and Penrose—those who believe there’s more to life and consciousness than our current understanding suggests. However, this perspective doesn’t extend to inanimate matter like rocks, air, or solar winds, as pointed out earlier.

The conventional view of reality often leans toward a 'matter-based' perspective, where the universe is seen as a collection of particles and forces interacting in deterministic or probabilistic ways - a machine. However, when life collaborates with matter to express itself, and quantum biology is taken into account, reality begins to appear more life-like than matter-like. This fusion suggests that life may be more fundamental to the fabric of the universe than previously believed. Rather than merely a complex arrangement of particles, it makes reality feel more organic, interconnected, and dynamic - not entirely behaving as a machine. Might life-like principles have played a bigger role in abiogenesis than anticipated?

I did my best, which isn't much, but oh well. It was meant to spark a discussion, but I suppose that won't be happening.

Life Partnering with Matter to Express Life Living organisms interact with and shape matter to create and sustain life. From biomineralization to enzyme catalysis and photosynthesis, life processes directly transform matter into functional biological structures and processes. Biomineralization: Life and Matter Interacting: Weiner, S., & Dove, P. M. (2003). "An Overview of Biomineralization." In: Weiner S, Dove PM, editors. Biomineralization. Academic Press. This work discusses how organisms like corals, mollusks, and bacteria use the surrounding environment to create minerals that provide structural support, demonstrating how life transforms matter into complex biological structures. Enzyme Catalysis and Matter Manipulation: Berg, J. M., Tymoczko, J. L., & Gatto, G. J. (2015). Biochemistry. 8th ed., W.H. Freeman and Company. This textbook highlights how enzymes interact with substrates to catalyze reactions, showcasing how life (through proteins) manipulates chemical matter to carry out vital functions such as metabolism and energy transfer. Quantum Coherence in Photosynthesis: *Engel, G. S., et al. (2007). "Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes." Nature. This study demonstrates how photosynthetic organisms utilize quantum coherence to efficiently transfer energy, showing how life partners with quantum mechanical properties of matter to optimize biological processes. Self-Organization in Biological Systems: Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press. Kauffman explores self-organization in biological systems, where life, through natural processes like chemical evolution, leads to the formation of organized structures and functions, illustrating how life shapes matter to express biological systems. Quantum Mechanics and the Emergence of Life from Non-Living Matter Quantum mechanics may have played a crucial role in the emergence of life from non-living matter. Studies suggest that quantum phenomena such as coherence, tunneling, and decoherence could have influenced prebiotic chemical processes essential for life’s origin, and influence the arising of life itself. The Role of Quantum Coherence in Prebiotic Chemistry: *Escher, M., et al. (2017). "The role of quantum coherence in prebiotic chemistry." Nature Communications. This study investigates the potential influence of quantum coherence in molecular assembly, proposing that quantum effects may have facilitated the assembly of complex prebiotic molecules critical for life’s origin. Quantum Tunneling in Biological Processes: *Barton, J. K., & Kohn, D. B. (2016). "Quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This research explores the role of quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis and its relevance to early prebiotic chemistry, suggesting that tunneling could have accelerated critical reactions for abiogenesis. Quantum Mechanics and the Formation of RNA-like Molecules: *Gabbay, D., et al. (2013). "The role of quantum mechanics in the formation of RNA-like molecules." BioSystems. This paper discusses how quantum mechanical phenomena, particularly tunneling, could have played a role in the chemical reactions leading to the formation of the first RNA molecules, supporting the RNA World Hypothesis. Quantum Decoherence and Early Chemical Evolution: *Tegmark, M. (2000). "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes." Physical Review. Although focused on brain processes, this study touches on the broader implications of quantum interactions in molecular systems, which could have been essential for early chemical evolution leading to life.

Life Alongside Matter: Life and matter might not have a strict cause-and-effect relationship, with life existing alongside and interacting with matter. How could that be? Emergence: Life is viewed as an emergent property, arising from the complex interactions and arrangements of matter. Rather than matter directly creating life, it creates the conditions necessary for life to emerge. Life is a product of these interactions, but not the creation of matter. Information: Life is an information processing mechanism, while matter serves as the information storage and transmission medium. Information, not just physical matter, drives life's processes. Life emerges from the organization of information, with matter providing the structure but information guiding the process.

Assume, yes; but don’t claim it as a fact without a clear mechanism for transforming matter into life. Science has explored alternative possibilities in other fields; why not do the same for abiogenesis? Well, I nearly fell off my chair reading this post! It’s the first one, aside from Gee, that doesn’t completely contradict what I’m saying. What’s wrong with combining 'source' and 'place' in the same statement? This happens all the time in discussions about abiogenesis.