Luc Turpin Posted January 5 Posted January 5 Cellular Communication Inspired by Jon Lieff: The Intricate Web of Cellular Communication From the irrelevant, dismissive and certified crackpot Cellular communication is far more intricate and sophisticated than we once imagined. Cells don’t operate in isolation; they constantly interact to regulate vital processes like growth, healing, and immune defense. This communication is crucial for maintaining homeostasis, enabling organisms to respond to environmental challenges, and ultimately ensuring survival. Key Insights: • Complex Communication: Cells communicate using a vast array of signaling methods that go far beyond just hormones or neurotransmitters. These signals include electrical impulses, mechanical forces, and even light signals (known as biophotons). For example, some cells communicate through electrical synapses that transmit signals at lightning speed, while mechano-transduction allows cells to sense and respond to physical forces in their environment. In the nervous system, biophotons may help neurons communicate with each other by synchronizing their activity. This multimodal communication allows cells to coordinate complex processes like cell development, immune responses and tissue repair. As a result, cellular communication is involved in the adaptation of organisms to changes in their environment, helping them navigate everything from nutrient availability to injury. • Cooperation: Cells often rely on cooperation to perform complex tasks, such as immune defense or tissue repair. This cooperation can occur within a single tissue, among different tissues, or between distinct cell types. For example, during wound healing, fibroblasts and immune cells must work together to restore tissue integrity, with fibroblasts generating new tissue and immune cells clearing infections. Similarly, cells communicate through cytokines, which are signaling molecules that enable immune cells to collaborate and mount a defense against pathogens. Without such coordination, even simple biological processes would break down. This cellular cooperation ensures that our bodies can handle complex, dynamic tasks like fighting infections, responding to injury, and maintaining organ function. • Collective Decision-Making: Cells, especially in the immune system, don’t just respond passively to stimuli. They actively "decide" based on shared signals. This concept of collective decision-making is critical for processes such as immune responses. Immune cells like T-cells and macrophages exchange chemical signals that influence whether they attack pathogens, produce inflammatory molecules, or activate other parts of the immune system. Another good example of collaborative decision-making in cells is during the development of multicellular organisms, particularly when forming tissues and organs. Cells need to communicate and work together to achieve common goals. In embryonic development, cells coordinate their actions based on signals from neighboring cells and their environment. As indicated, collaborative decision-making is key for complex physiological phenomena. Research into cellular decision-making processes also suggests that cells might even "know" when to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the organism—an example of programmed cell death or apoptosis in cancer suppression and immune responses. • Epigenetics and Adaptation: One of the most fascinating discoveries in biology is the role of epigenetics in cellular communication. External signals, including those from neighboring cells, the environment, or even microbiota, can activate or silence genes without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These modifications, like DNA methylation, allow cells to adapt to environmental changes in a flexible manner. For example, stem cells receive signals from their environment that direct them to become specific cell types, such as muscle, nerve, or skin cells, through epigenetic mechanisms. These changes don’t require a genetic mutation, allowing organisms to respond to challenges without permanently altering their genetic code. In essence, epigenetics represents a "memory" system that helps cells remember past signals and adapt future behavior accordingly. • The Brain-Body Connection: A growing body of research highlights the crucial role of the gut-brain axis—the communication system linking the gut and the brain. The gut sends signals to the brain through vagus nerve stimulation, hormones like ghrelin and leptin, and even neurotransmitters like serotonin. These signals can influence mood, cognition, and even stress responses. In return, the brain can modulate gut function, influencing digestion and immune responses. This bi-directional communication explains why gut health is so closely linked to mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and even autism spectrum disorders. It suggests that cellular communication extends beyond isolated organs and systems, showing how intertwined the body's various processes truly are. • The Microbiome: The microbiome, consisting of trillions of microbes residing in and on our bodies, has a profound impact on cellular communication, particularly in areas like immune function, metabolism, and mental health. These microbes produce a variety of molecules—such as short-chain fatty acids, neurotransmitters, and vitamins—that influence the cells of the digestive tract, immune system, and brain. Recent studies reveal that gut microbiota can shape immune responses by interacting with dendritic cells and T cells, which in turn influence inflammation and pathogen defense. Moreover, changes in the microbiome are linked to conditions like autoimmune diseases, obesity, and even neurodegenerative diseases. The microbiome is a perfect example of how cellular communication is not limited to human cells but extends to the microbial residents that live symbiotically within our bodies. Aside from the gut microbiome, there are also skin, oral and respiratory microbiomes. • Internal Cellular Communication: Within individual cells, communication between organelles is crucial for maintaining homeostasis. For example, mitochondria not only produce energy but also communicate with the nucleus to regulate processes like cell growth, apoptosis, and response to oxidative stress. This communication is essential for cellular health; disruptions in this internal network can lead to diseases such as mitochondrial disorders and cancer. The endoplasmic reticulum also communicates with the rest of the cell to maintain protein folding and calcium balance, and its dysfunction can lead to diseases like Alzheimer's. Organelles like the Golgi apparatus and lysosomes coordinate with each other to transport proteins and eliminate waste. Without these intricate systems of internal cellular communication, cells would be unable to maintain function, adapt to stress, or carry out their specialized roles. Life as a Web of Communication: At its core, life is about the constant exchange of information across cells, tissues, organs, and the environment. These interwoven networks shape the behavior of cells, influencing everything from how tissues develop to how they respond to injury or infection. Cellular behavior is not driven solely by a set of genetic instructions or chemical signals; it’s a continuous flow of information that comes from interactions between cells and their environment, as well as feedback loops between the body’s different systems. Things become even more complex and much more fascinating when the act of thinking—an intangible process—creates neuronal links, a tangible physical change. This intricate process involves thinking, molecular signaling, glial cell participation, feedback mechanisms, plasticity, and cognitive integration—though such a topic deserves a deeper exploration in another post. As our understanding of biology deepens, it becomes increasingly clear that life is governed by extraordinarily sophisticated systems, far more intricate than previously recognized. Cellular communication is a prime example of how these systems work together, creating a highly coordinated, adaptive network that sustains life. This interconnectedness challenges the traditional mechanical models of biology, which often see living systems as merely the sum of their parts. Rather, biology appears to be governed by principles of coordination and something akin somewhat to thought—the ability of cells to process, interpret, and respond to signals in ways that are adaptive, purposeful, and dynamic. A New Paradigm for Life: Could the emerging complexity of cellular communication suggest a deeper level of organization than we’ve recognized in biology? The more we study cellular behavior, the less it seems that life is merely the result of reactive processes. At the very least, the complexity inherent in nature makes it significantly harder to explain everything away with simplistic "just because" reasoning. Rather, biology points toward the involvement of complex, coordinated systems that exhibit behaviors. If cells can collectively make decisions, respond to environmental cues, and adapt to challenges in ways that appear to reflect some sort of action with an intended consequence, might there be something more to life than mere autonomic reactions? -1
Phi for All Posted January 5 Posted January 5 I hate just about everything about this opening post. It's not your work, it's not even the author's work, it assumes far too much about cells being able to "decide" their futures, and the bulk of it is just drawing parallels with human behavior without any real meaning. And typically, you've managed to stretch the definition of several words so they fit the analogies you're using. You're practically giving consciousness to chemical reactions. This is just my opinion, but I don't think this deserves a discussion with real people. It seems cheap and cowardly. Based on past history, you'll ignore any detractors by claiming it's not your work, just someone you read.
exchemist Posted January 5 Posted January 5 37 minutes ago, Phi for All said: I hate just about everything about this opening post. It's not your work, it's not even the author's work, it assumes far too much about cells being able to "decide" their futures, and the bulk of it is just drawing parallels with human behavior without any real meaning. And typically, you've managed to stretch the definition of several words so they fit the analogies you're using. You're practically giving consciousness to chemical reactions. This is just my opinion, but I don't think this deserves a discussion with real people. It seems cheap and cowardly. Based on past history, you'll ignore any detractors by claiming it's not your work, just someone you read. “Paradigm” does seem to be one of those faux-intellectual buzzwords beloved of Chat GPT and the like. 😉
Luc Turpin Posted January 5 Author Posted January 5 (edited) 4 hours ago, Phi for All said: I hate just about everything about this opening post. It's not your work, it's not even the author's work, it assumes far too much about cells being able to "decide" their futures, and the bulk of it is just drawing parallels with human behavior without any real meaning. And typically, you've managed to stretch the definition of several words so they fit the analogies you're using. You're practically giving consciousness to chemical reactions. This is just my opinion, but I don't think this deserves a discussion with real people. It seems cheap and cowardly. Based on past history, you'll ignore any detractors by claiming it's not your work, just someone you read. I spent ten days working intermittently on the introductory post. The author provided the key bullet points and central concepts, while I contributed by conducting an extensive search for relevant examples to support and illustrate these ideas. The last three paragraphs are entirely my own. The main message of the post highlights the extraordinary complexity of biology, suggesting that such intricacy likely requires more than random chance reactions. I am not attributing consciousness to chemical reactions, nor is consciousness or cognition even the central focus of the post. Instead, my emphasis is on the notion that the complexity of life seems to point toward a sense of organization of some sort. I believe this is a highly valid point for discussion. My next step was to write a post on the physical changes the brain undergoes when a thought is formed, but I'm now uncertain if it’s still worth pursuing. This one also would have taken many days to prepare. 4 hours ago, exchemist said: “Paradigm” does seem to be one of those faux-intellectual buzzwords beloved of Chat GPT and the like. 😉 I have been using "paradigm shift" for a while without mention that it came from Chat GPT. Edited January 5 by Luc Turpin
swansont Posted January 5 Posted January 5 8 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: The main message of the post highlights the extraordinary complexity of biology, suggesting that such intricacy likely requires more than random chance reactions ! Moderator Note You’ve presented no evidence of this, and if that’s your pitch, you can’t sneak it in (along with any attempt to advance your notions of cognition). Argument from incredulity is not evidence. If it’s not, then why bring it up? I’m sure the biological community will be shocked that cells have electrical, magnetic and chemical interactions, since we’ve only known about that for many, many decades. Being new to you carries no weight.
TheVat Posted January 6 Posted January 6 11 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: Rather, biology appears to be governed by principles of coordination and something akin somewhat to thought—the ability of cells to process, interpret, and respond to signals in ways that are adaptive, purposeful, and dynamic. Maybe others have said enough, but I want to suggest that this kind of equivocation is removing clarity and precision from your postings here. Actual thought, aka cognition, is an emergent process in large networks of neurons, which opens up to holistic descriptions. This doesn't mean there are tiny thought processes in individual cells, or that cells have the same causal powers (in miniature) that sentient creatures do. This opens a trapdoor into panpsychism and metaphysical conjectures that are untestable pseudoscience. Remember, when a biologist uses a word like "communication" to refer to chemical interactions between organelles or between cells, it is a specialized usage that does not imply anything akin somewhat to thought . Or when a biochemist speaks of a reaction, it is no way like a person reacting to shocking news. Different functional levels may use the same nomenclature, but the terms refer in very different ways. 1
Luc Turpin Posted January 6 Author Posted January 6 18 minutes ago, swansont said: ! Moderator Note You’ve presented no evidence of this, and if that’s your pitch, you can’t sneak it in (along with any attempt to advance your notions of cognition). Argument from incredulity is not evidence. If it’s not, then why bring it up? I’m sure the biological community will be shocked that cells have electrical, magnetic and chemical interactions, since we’ve only known about that for many, many decades. Being new to you carries no weight. The post is replete with examples of complexity of life. I did not invent them. Taken together they show complexity. A semblance of cognition was brought into the picture for two reasons: it was needed to show the level of complexity attained by cells; the search that I did on the matter was often bringing up this point on the subject of cell complexity. I brought electrical, magnetic and chemical reactions into the post not to clamour that they were new and revolutionary, but to show, again, the complexity of life.
swansont Posted January 6 Posted January 6 1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said: The post is replete with examples of complexity of life. I did not invent them. Taken together they show complexity. A semblance of cognition was brought into the picture for two reasons: it was needed to show the level of complexity attained by cells; the search that I did on the matter was often bringing up this point on the subject of cell complexity. I brought electrical, magnetic and chemical reactions into the post not to clamour that they were new and revolutionary, but to show, again, the complexity of life. I guess I wasn’t clear enough: the problem is “more than random chance reactions” I thought that would be obvious, since nobody argues that life isn’t complex, but that’s too much to expect, I guess, even though your agenda of insisting on it been a recurring issue across multiple threads. ANY suggestion that there’s “something more” requires evidence, or the thread gets sent to the trash can, since that’s not science.
Luc Turpin Posted January 6 Author Posted January 6 (edited) 11 hours ago, swansont said: I guess I wasn’t clear enough: the problem is “more than random chance reactions” I thought that would be obvious, since nobody argues that life isn’t complex, but that’s too much to expect, I guess, even though your agenda of insisting on it been a recurring issue across multiple threads. ANY suggestion that there’s “something more” requires evidence, or the thread gets sent to the trash can, since that’s not science. Am-I adressing your issue with the following? ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ If intelligence exists in all living things, then there may be a purpose to life. Through science, we can observe hints of an intelligent fingerprint within all forms of life. This intelligence appears to be modular, evolving from simpler forms in lower organisms to more sophisticated expressions in complex organisms like humans. Below are studies that suggest even cells may exhibit some form of intelligence: Philip Ball, in his article "Cellular Memory Hints at the Origin of Intelligence", discusses how slime molds exhibit remarkable rhythmic recall. This supports my view that intelligence originates in cells, rather than emerging solely from neural networks, as TheVat suggests. Michael Levin and Patrick McMillen, in their paper "Collective Intelligence: A Unifying Concept for Integrating Biology Across Scales and Substates", highlight examples of cellular decision-making, which exhibit cooperation toward specific homeodynamic outcomes. They argue that collective intelligence is not limited to animal groups, but also manifests at the cellular and organismal levels, drawing a parallel between the behavioral dynamics of animal swarms and the intelligence of biological systems at varying scales. An intriguing article by Michael Levin on cellular intelligence challenges traditional views of DNA and biological systems. His work focuses on bioelectricity and its role in cellular behavior. Read more In "The Foundations of Plant Intelligence", Anthony Trewavas argues that intelligent behavior is not limited to neural systems, noting the similarities between the network of molecular interactions and the network of neuron connections, suggesting that intelligence can exist in systems without neural structures. Ferris Jabr, in "How Brainless Slime Molds Redefine Intelligence" (Scientific American), discusses the surprising abilities of the yellow slime mold Physarum polycephalum. This organism can solve mazes, replicate transportation networks, and select the healthiest food sources—all without a brain or nervous system. According to Chris Reid of the University of Sydney, slime molds challenge conventional definitions of intelligence. A summary on microbial intelligence from Wikipedia reveals behaviors among bacteria: Bacterial biofilms—which form through the collective behavior of millions of cells—demonstrate synchronized growth, nutrient maximization, and survival strategies under stress. Bacteria reorganize themselves under antibiotic stress, swap genes (including those for antibiotic resistance), and even communicate through quorum sensing to coordinate actions such as biofilm formation and disease progression. Under certain conditions, bacteria can display forms of memory and decision-making. For example, bacterial biofilms exhibit a membrane potential-based working memory that persists hours after stimuli. Myxobacteria exhibit social behavior by coordinating movements and forming complex structures, suggesting a higher level of collective intelligence. In "Cellular Intelligence: Microphenomenology and the Realities of Being", Brian J. Ford argues that cognition, response, and decision-making are intrinsic to living cells. He highlights examples, such as shell-building amoebae and the red algae Antithamion, that exhibit cellular intelligence not easily captured by conventional models or computational analysis. Uri Alon, in "Network Motifs: Theory and Experimental Approaches", discusses how signaling networks within cells operate like decision-making systems, a key feature of cellular intelligence. Gertz and Cohen, in their work "The Functional Role of Transcription Factor Binding In Vivo", explain how cells process information through the action of transcription factors, which are critical for cellular responses and decision-making. Schneider and Widder explore the dynamics of cellular networks, emphasizing how these networks maintain homeostasis through intelligent, adaptive control systems. Bassler and Losik, in "Bacterial Social Engagement", examine the concept of "quorum sensing," in which bacteria communicate and coordinate behaviors based on population density, displaying social learning and intelligence. These studies collectively suggest that intelligence is not confined to organisms with complex nervous systems, but may be a fundamental feature of all living things, extending to the cellular level. Whether through decision-making, coordination, or memory, intelligence appears to be embedded in life across diverse biological scales. Edited January 6 by Luc Turpin
dimreepr Posted January 6 Posted January 6 36 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: If intelligence exists in all living things, Then we're no better than a worm...
swansont Posted January 6 Posted January 6 43 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said: If intelligence exists in all living things, then there may be a purpose to life. Through science, we can observe hints of an intelligent fingerprint within all forms of life. This intelligence appears to be modular, evolving from simpler forms in lower organisms to more sophisticated expressions in complex organisms like humans. Below are studies that suggest even cells may exhibit some form of intelligence: You keep missing the mark. You might have provided evidence of intelligence, but that’s not evidence of purpose. That connection is only your conjecture. And, as promised, we’re done here.
Phi for All Posted January 6 Posted January 6 15 hours ago, Luc Turpin said: The main message of the post highlights the extraordinary complexity of biology, suggesting that such intricacy likely requires more than random chance reactions. "Likely requires" is a phrase that a little rigor could eliminate. This notion that intricacy requires some supernatural agency has been debunked over and over. Creationism has no scientific support.
Recommended Posts