Are Bacteria Smarter than Humans?

[Meta Island]

“I go back, and so do you, like it or not, to a single Ur-ancestor whose remains are on display in rocks dated approximately 3.5 thousand million years ago, born a billion or so years after the earth itself took shape and began cooling down. That first of the line, our n-granduncle, was unmistakably a bacterial cell…. We derive from a lineage of bacteria, and a very long line at that.”

So sayeth Lewis Thomas in the Introduction to his book A Long Line of Cells.

Bacteria, an organic long shot in the first place, somehow forged raw materials into RNA and DNA molecules, far greater achievements with far greater consequences than triumphs like Colonel Sanders’ Secret Recipe and the latest Intel processor. Accidents of Nature, i.e., actions without Intention, are one explanation of the Bacterial creations, but do we know for certain that there was no external force manifesting as Intention, that the forging was just an accident of materials and heat/lightning?

If the definition of Intention is confined within the walls of human Will and Consciousness, a mental brew vaguely defined by subjective experience and objective effects, the discussion of Bacterial intentionality ends; but a presumption that Bacteria has no intentionality does not refute or support the existence of a Natural driver that created Intention, Will and Consciousness in humans. You could say those abilities arose spontaneously in humans, but that leads to further vagueness.

Until the existence of such an external driver is refuted, or identified and confirmed to be exclusive to humans, there cannot reasonably be any differentiation of Natural creations from human creations. Nor can it reasonably be denied that the Bacterial creations of RNA and DNA are far greater achievements than any human achievements.

(1) Can you suggest a Natural driver of Intention that applies to humans but not to Bacteria?

(2) Related, is Free Will always necessary for Intent?

[LuckyR]

“I go back, and so do you, like it or not, to a single Ur-ancestor whose remains are on display in rocks dated approximately 3.5 thousand million years ago, born a billion or so years after the earth itself took shape and began cooling down. That first of the line, our n-granduncle, was unmistakably a bacterial cell…. We derive from a lineage of bacteria, and a very long line at that.”

So sayeth Lewis Thomas in the Introduction to his book A Long Line of Cells.

Bacteria, an organic long shot in the first place, somehow forged raw materials into RNA and DNA molecules, far greater achievements with far greater consequences than triumphs like Colonel Sanders’ Secret Recipe and the latest Intel processor. Accidents of Nature, i.e., actions without Intention, are one explanation of the Bacterial creations, but do we know for certain that there was no external force manifesting as Intention, that the forging was just an accident of materials and heat/lightning?

If the definition of Intention is confined within the walls of human Will and Consciousness, a mental brew vaguely defined by subjective experience and objective effects, the discussion of Bacterial intentionality ends; but a presumption that Bacteria has no intentionality does not refute or support the existence of a Natural driver that created Intention, Will and Consciousness in humans. You could say those abilities arose spontaneously in humans, but that leads to further vagueness.

Until the existence of such an external driver is refuted, or identified and confirmed to be exclusive to humans, there cannot reasonably be any differentiation of Natural creations from human creations. Nor can it reasonably be denied that the Bacterial creations of RNA and DNA are far greater achievements than any human achievements.

(1) Can you suggest a Natural driver of Intention that applies to humans but not to Bacteria?

(2) Related, is Free Will always necessary for Intent?

Even if you assume that bacteria intentionally came up with RNA and DNA (which is highly unlikely), that would make bacteria the biggest One Hit Wonder of all time. Who's a better recording artist Bill Haley and the Comets with 25 million in sales for Rock Around the Clock or Elvis Presley with 20 million for It's Now or Never?

Someone with no understanding of music might say Bill Haley, just as a cursory review might declare bacteria as smarter than humans.

So what has bacteria thought up recently?

[Meta Island]

“I go back, and so do you, like it or not, to a single Ur-ancestor whose remains are on display in rocks dated approximately 3.5 thousand million years ago, born a billion or so years after the earth itself took shape and began cooling down. That first of the line, our n-granduncle, was unmistakably a bacterial cell…. We derive from a lineage of bacteria, and a very long line at that.”

So sayeth Lewis Thomas in the Introduction to his book A Long Line of Cells.

Bacteria, an organic long shot in the first place, somehow forged raw materials into RNA and DNA molecules, far greater achievements with far greater consequences than triumphs like Colonel Sanders’ Secret Recipe and the latest Intel processor. Accidents of Nature, i.e., actions without Intention, are one explanation of the Bacterial creations, but do we know for certain that there was no external force manifesting as Intention, that the forging was just an accident of materials and heat/lightning?

If the definition of Intention is confined within the walls of human Will and Consciousness, a mental brew vaguely defined by subjective experience and objective effects, the discussion of Bacterial intentionality ends; but a presumption that Bacteria has no intentionality does not refute or support the existence of a Natural driver that created Intention, Will and Consciousness in humans. You could say those abilities arose spontaneously in humans, but that leads to further vagueness.

Until the existence of such an external driver is refuted, or identified and confirmed to be exclusive to humans, there cannot reasonably be any differentiation of Natural creations from human creations. Nor can it reasonably be denied that the Bacterial creations of RNA and DNA are far greater achievements than any human achievements.

(1) Can you suggest a Natural driver of Intention that applies to humans but not to Bacteria?

(2) Related, is Free Will always necessary for Intent?

Even if you assume that bacteria intentionally came up with RNA and DNA (which is highly unlikely), that would make bacteria the biggest One Hit Wonder of all time. Who's a better recording artist Bill Haley and the Comets with 25 million in sales for Rock Around the Clock or Elvis Presley with 20 million for It's Now or Never?

Someone with no understanding of music might say Bill Haley, just as a cursory review might declare bacteria as smarter than humans.

So what has bacteria thought up recently?

Hello Lucky, I see your reasoning, but if the variety of life on earth is counted as record sales I’d say that was a heck of a One Hit Wonder.

More seriously, my main point is not that bacteria are smarter than humans, it is that without an understanding of intentionality there is no basis for assuming that human achievements are more sophisticated, or exist in a different domain, than any other Natural achievements. If I remember correctly, I think you have said elsewhere on the forum that we live in an entropic Universe; if entropy is the driver of intentionality, it strengthens the argument that all achievements are Natural achievements.

The discussion over a separation of domains is an interesting but contentious issue in the ChatGPT thread; to simplify the focus, and choosing discretion as the better part of valor, I posted here instead of there.

[value]

I agree with your conclusion that intelligence in lower life forms cannot be teleleogical.

With teleonomy, it is posed that intelligent behaviour in lower life forms is a mere predetermined program.

All teleonomic behavior is characterized by two components. It is guided by a ‘program’, and it depends on the existence of some endpoint, goal, or terminus which is foreseen in the program that regulates the behavior. This endpoint might be a structure, a physiological function, the attainment of a new geographical position, or a ‘consummatory’ (Craig 1918) act in behavior. Each particular program is the result of natural selection, constantly adjusted by the selective value of the achieved endpoint.”

Mayr, Ernst. “The Multiple Meanings of Teleological” In Toward A New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist, 38-66. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. pp. 44-5

In my opinion it is not logical to consider that lower life forms are bound by determinism and are ‘programs’ that perform a function that can be described empirically.

There seems to be no indication that animals or humans have a special substance that differentiates their ‘consciousness’ or experience of life from other life such as bacteria.

I recently learned that biological cells - tinier than bacteria that consist of those cells - intelligently 'sense' their environment to explore it as opposed to the teleleogical idea that cells might be 'predetermined automata' in the face of a causal environment.

(2017) Cells sense their environment to explore it
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 125821.htm

Philosopher William James mentioned the following about the mind in The Principles of Psychology:

"all that is able to be affirmed is that it [mind] is something that: perceives, reflects, remembers, imagines and wills but what it is that exerts these energies is unknown"

Recent studies showed that all particles in the cosmos are entangled by 'kind' which would imply that 'kind' would be applicable to reality itself.

(2020) Is nonlocality inherent in all identical particles in the universe?
The photon emitted by the monitor screen and the photon from the distant galaxy at the depths of the universe seem to be entangled only by their identical nature. This is a great mystery that science will soon confront.
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nonlocali ... verse.html

The following topic implies it.

Universe Isn't Locally Real - Nobel Prize in Physics 2022
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 12&t=18367

When kind is applicable to anything in the cosmos, it would prove Plato's theory of forms.

According to Plato, an individual dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).

Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real; its reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.

There is some evidence for the idea of 'kind' (forms) to be applicable to anything in the cosmos.

An example is Carcinisation. Crustacean animals keep evolving into asymmetrical crab-form with one big claw and a smaller claw, and many features that are specific to crab-form, all over the world in different places. It received its own name: carcinization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

The Cambrian Explosion is similar. The Cambrian Explosion, a period of the early earth ~530 million years ago, hasn't been explained until today. It was a mystery in Darwin's time but he said that science would find the missing fossils, which haven't been found. So it seems that a quite mysterious event took place by which complete animal building plans - for all animal categories that exist today - instantly arrived on earth.

(2020) The Cambrian Explosion Mystery: Fossils still say no to Darwin
https://www.icr.org/article/the-fossils ... -explosion

To return to the quote of William James that characterized mind or 'intelligence' as being energy.

The whole of earth including its dark side is bathing in a continuous stream of neutrino energy.

A recent study showed a correlation between supernovae explosions and an explosion of life forms (creative process) on earth. In a Supernovae explosion, 99% of a stars energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos. The other 1% is matter.

(2022) Supernovae and life on Earth appear closely connected
A remarkable link between the number of nearby exploding stars, called supernovae, and life on Earth has been discovered.
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html

Perhaps neutrinos (energy form) could provide a lead for new answers.

[Meta Island]

In my opinion it is not logical to consider that lower life forms are bound by determinism and are ‘programs’ that perform a function that can be described empirically.

There seems to be no indication that animals or humans have a special substance that differentiates their ‘consciousness’ or experience of life from other life such as bacteria.

Hello value, human intentionality is the only differentiating factor that makes sense to me, and assuming that it arises from a human Consciousness no one can adequately define seems premature at best.

When kind is applicable to anything in the cosmos, it would prove Plato's theory of forms.

Plato wrote: According to Plato, an individual dog, Fido, for example, since he is not 'dog as such', but only a dog, is not fully real. To be fully real, Fido would need to be the universal essence, "Dog in himself", existing in a separate world of universal Essences (subsisting forms, or Ideas).

Since Fido is merely a dog, he is not fully real; its reality is merely a participation in the reality of the universal essence. Hence, he is merely a shadow (albeit a real shadow) of the "really" Real, the separated Form, or Idea, existing in the World of Ideas.

Your evocation of Plato in this context is timely and insightful. The Universe is a complexity of interacting waveforms (“the World of Ideas”). Consolidating waveforms can result in “physical” structures. I have not seen entropy described as a consolidation of waveforms, but such a description would resonate with Platonism.

In my next OP I distinguish between thermodynamic entropy and information theory entropy as they relate to Perception, but it is just a section of a larger OP. A new OP that investigates the relationship of Platonism to intentionality or entropy would be interesting if someone wants to try it.
#
The following excerpt is from an article entitled The Life Cycle of Galaxies by Guinevere Kauffmann and Frank van den Bosch that appeared in Majestic Universe, an October 2001 special issue of Scientific American.

Galactic Density Variations: “Density variations in the pregalactic followed a pattern that facilitated the formation of protogalaxies. The variations were composed of waves of various wavelengths in a pattern that music connoisseurs will recognize as “pink noise.” [Indeed , they originated as sound waves in the primordial plasma*.] A small wave was superimposed on a slightly larger wave, which was superimposed on an even larger wave, and so on. Therefore, the highest density occurred over the smallest regions. These regions collapsed first and became the building blocks for larger structures.”
#

A recent study showed a correlation between supernovae explosions and an explosion of life forms (creative process) on earth. In a Supernovae explosion, 99% of a stars energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos. The other 1% is matter.

(2022) Supernovae and life on Earth appear closely connected
A remarkable link between the number of nearby exploding stars, called supernovae, and life on Earth has been discovered.
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html

Perhaps neutrinos (energy form) could provide a lead for new answers.

I was not aware of the supernova/neutrino possibility. I spent some time thinking about it today, and I tossed around how neutrino interactions with gravity might figure into this, but I don’t have the technical knowledge to dig into it.

[value]

I was not aware of the supernova/neutrino possibility. I spent some time thinking about it today, and I tossed around how neutrino interactions with gravity might figure into this, but I don’t have the technical knowledge to dig into it.

An interesting question might be: a particle so tiny that it passes straight through the core of the Sun or Earth's iron core without being affected (it can pass effortless through a layer of lead the size of the solar system) is somehow able to 'morph' into different states (called 'flavours') with a mass difference of up to 3000x.

Further, in theory the particle moves at light speed because it can switch between flavours. At light speed there is no time or distance so at question would be: how could such a tiny particle deviate out of a state of timelessness to interact with mass in the physical world?

When a neutrino changes "flavor" or "color" it is in a transition state and therefore can be any mass. At the midpoint it is 0 mass and travels at speed c (light speed). When it becomes one or the other it has mass. In between it can have any mass, meaning even 0 mass. It's the same as Schrodingers cat. It works and is non-contradictory.

At light speed: no time
But for light itself, which is already moving at light speed… You guessed it, the photons reach zero distance and zero time.
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-ligh ... -time.html

--

Side note: the question why children always draw a smiling face on the Sun may be a philosophical question.

[Meta Island]

Pardon me while I put an ice pack on my head.

[value]

Pardon me while I put an ice pack on my head.

When neutrino's are the origin of consciousness it could imply that life is bound to a region around a star. A relevant question would be: where are the aliens?

Most people in the modern world view life as something that is owned on an individual level, as something that can be taken with one during space travel. Popular films such as Star Trek and Star Wars have displayed a future in which humans travel through space.

Some scientists are wondering however: why is the Solar system and Earth not crowded with alien visitors? Why, after decades of space science, has no hint been found for the existence of extraterrestrial life?

In 2021 I discovered that the farthest distance that an animal, insect or bacteria had travelled in space was the Moon and meanwhile trillions of USD were already invested for a manned mission to Mars in 2030.

Science it's dogmatic influence on behalf of determinism, the ground upon which science envisions itself to become master of the Universe, has resulted in a such a repression that it was never considered that Earth life may be bound to a region around the Sun.

Philosophy naturally would have posed the following questions:

• Is there at least one clue that Earth life is independent from the Solar system?
• On what basis is it valid to consider that life is like a biochemical fire that can be taken with one during space travel?

Based on these questions, the first thing to test would be whether Earth life can remain alive further away from Earth. Yet, as of 2021 it was never tested because mainstream science intends to steer to a perspective in which life is a deterministic biochemical process and consciousness an illusion.

When life would be bound to a region around a star, it could explain why the Universe is not crowded with alien activity.

With regard bacterial intelligence. The theory would imply that the actual origin of life in both humans and bacteria would be the same (neutrino energy).

[Bahman]

“I go back, and so do you, like it or not, to a single Ur-ancestor whose remains are on display in rocks dated approximately 3.5 thousand million years ago, born a billion or so years after the earth itself took shape and began cooling down. That first of the line, our n-granduncle, was unmistakably a bacterial cell…. We derive from a lineage of bacteria, and a very long line at that.”

So sayeth Lewis Thomas in the Introduction to his book A Long Line of Cells.

Bacteria, an organic long shot in the first place, somehow forged raw materials into RNA and DNA molecules, far greater achievements with far greater consequences than triumphs like Colonel Sanders’ Secret Recipe and the latest Intel processor. Accidents of Nature, i.e., actions without Intention, are one explanation of the Bacterial creations, but do we know for certain that there was no external force manifesting as Intention, that the forging was just an accident of materials and heat/lightning?

If the definition of Intention is confined within the walls of human Will and Consciousness, a mental brew vaguely defined by subjective experience and objective effects, the discussion of Bacterial intentionality ends; but a presumption that Bacteria has no intentionality does not refute or support the existence of a Natural driver that created Intention, Will and Consciousness in humans. You could say those abilities arose spontaneously in humans, but that leads to further vagueness.

Until the existence of such an external driver is refuted, or identified and confirmed to be exclusive to humans, there cannot reasonably be any differentiation of Natural creations from human creations. Nor can it reasonably be denied that the Bacterial creations of RNA and DNA are far greater achievements than any human achievements.

This is an interesting topic. I think we cannot simply discard the existence of an intention for the creation of simple life such as bacteria.

(1) Can you suggest a Natural driver of Intention that applies to humans but not to Bacteria?

I think so. Bacteria do not have intention. Intention requires a higher mode of experiencing the surrounding which manifests itself as thoughts.

(2) Related, is Free Will always necessary for Intent?

Free will is required for the decision in a situation. Intents define the situation.

[Meta Island]

A recent study showed a correlation between supernovae explosions and an explosion of life forms (creative process) on earth. In a Supernovae explosion, 99% of a stars energy is released into the Universe in the form of neutrinos. The other 1% is matter.

(2022) Supernovae and life on Earth appear closely connected
A remarkable link between the number of nearby exploding stars, called supernovae, and life on Earth has been discovered.
https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html

Perhaps neutrinos (energy form) could provide a lead for new answers.

With regard bacterial intelligence. The theory would imply that the actual origin of life in both humans and bacteria would be the same (neutrino energy).

I can see that you have given the neutrinos theory a lot of thought. The “mixing of nutrients” via the indirect interaction of cosmic rays and clouds described in your link https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html resulted in stable combinations, which is not inconsistent with the results of entropy.

I do have trouble, though, seeing the creation of the earth and the moon from cosmic rays/neutrinos, so for now I am leaning away from cosmic rays and toward entropy as the primary driver of intent – and therefore the primary driver of intelligent life derived from the bacterial creation of DNA.

[Meta Island]

I think so. Bacteria do not have intention. Intention requires a higher mode of experiencing the surrounding which manifests itself as thoughts.

Hello Bahman, I don’t necessarily disagree with your point about bacteria, it is just that in your description of a higher mode I think you are referring to intention as a phenomenon that requires human “thoughts” or instincts to exist.

I am thinking there is a driver of intent that existed prior to human existence, something on a grander scale than human thought, such as entropy, which in an information theory sense can be seen as a creative force.

Then that driver, whether it is entropy or another possibility, would be the force behind all forms of intent from bacteria to human to AI.

Free will is required for the decision in a situation. Intents define the situation.

This is certainly a reasonable description of free will and intent if intent relies on human thought or instinct for its existence. What I am questioning is the reliance on human thought as opposed to a pre-human driver for intent, i.e., a Natural rather than an anthropomorphic driver.

[Bahman]

I think so. Bacteria do not have intention. Intention requires a higher mode of experiencing the surrounding which manifests itself as thoughts.

Hello Bahman, I don’t necessarily disagree with your point about bacteria, it is just that in your description of a higher mode I think you are referring to intention as a phenomenon that requires human “thoughts” or instincts to exist.

I am thinking there is a driver of intent that existed prior to human existence, something on a grander scale than human thought, such as entropy, which in an information theory sense can be seen as a creative force.

Then that driver, whether it is entropy or another possibility, would be the force behind all forms of intent from bacteria to human to AI.

Free will is required for the decision in a situation. Intents define the situation.

This is certainly a reasonable description of free will and intent if intent relies on human thought or instinct for its existence. What I am questioning is the reliance on human thought as opposed to a pre-human driver for intent, i.e., a Natural rather than an anthropomorphic driver.

The behavior of bacteria as far I can tell can be simulated. You can find a great deal of interest among scientists to model and simulate the behavior of bacteria (you can enjoy literature using google following "simulating bacteria behavior" keywords). I think that in the absence of, instinct, intuition, logical thinking, and wisdom, the organism basically follows the laws of nature. So I can tell that the laws of nature are the common force in humans, bacteria, and AI.

[Meta Island]

I think so. Bacteria do not have intention. Intention requires a higher mode of experiencing the surrounding which manifests itself as thoughts.

Hello Bahman, I don’t necessarily disagree with your point about bacteria, it is just that in your description of a higher mode I think you are referring to intention as a phenomenon that requires human “thoughts” or instincts to exist.

I am thinking there is a driver of intent that existed prior to human existence, something on a grander scale than human thought, such as entropy, which in an information theory sense can be seen as a creative force.

Then that driver, whether it is entropy or another possibility, would be the force behind all forms of intent from bacteria to human to AI.

Free will is required for the decision in a situation. Intents define the situation.

This is certainly a reasonable description of free will and intent if intent relies on human thought or instinct for its existence. What I am questioning is the reliance on human thought as opposed to a pre-human driver for intent, i.e., a Natural rather than an anthropomorphic driver.

The behavior of bacteria as far I can tell can be simulated. You can find a great deal of interest among scientists to model and simulate the behavior of bacteria (you can enjoy literature using google following "simulating bacteria behavior" keywords). I think that in the absence of, instinct, intuition, logical thinking, and wisdom, the organism basically follows the laws of nature. So I can tell that the laws of nature are the common force in humans, bacteria, and AI.

Your conclusion makes the most sense to me too; it is a wide-ranging foundation. I am always open to a counterargument that destroys or shakes (positively or negatively) that foundation; such a counter has a high bar to clear, but if it does I’ll get on board with it. The (anthropomorphic or non-anthropomorphic? ) ruling context in all of this is to “get it right”.

[value]

I can see that you have given the neutrinos theory a lot of thought. The “mixing of nutrients” via the indirect interaction of cosmic rays and clouds described in your link https://phys.org/news/2022-01-supernova ... earth.html resulted in stable combinations, which is not inconsistent with the results of entropy.

The researchers might not have considered neutrinos so I intended to push it forward boldly. Considering that 99% of a Supernovae explosion consists of neutrinos it is an option worth being pushed forward for consideration, in my opinion. You are right however that the cited source does not support the theory, which is actually merely an idea that might be worthy of philosophical (broad) consideration.

I do have trouble, though, seeing the creation of the earth and the moon from cosmic rays/neutrinos, so for now I am leaning away from cosmic rays and toward entropy as the primary driver of intent – and therefore the primary driver of intelligent life derived from the bacterial creation of DNA.

Well, there are a lot of neutrinos and considering that they rarely interact they would travel almost infinitely across the galaxy. Neutrino's interact with mass and can change their mass interaction up to 3000x in size - out of themselves. Neutrinos are called a 'Ghost Particle'.

It is estimated that 10 trillion neutrinos from the Sun travel through every square centimetre of space at any time. Cosmic-wise it's a lot more and the estimate is based on what science has been able to measure today.

Humans today only know of neutrinos that interact with mass. That interaction is not fixed but is based on a 'state' (flavour) that the neutrino can morph into out of itself which means that it can also have a zero-state (according to the quote in my previous post).

Scientists now predict that neutrinos can in fact decide (intent) to 'not interact' (have zero mass) and then exist in such quantities that it explains dark matter - the factor that according to science would be required to explain the observed form of the cosmos.

Neutrinos may solve the mystery of dark matter
https://www.nature.com/articles/d44151-022-00024-6

What is interesting in my opinion is to have a critical and pioneering philosophical look into neutrinos. Scientists are limited to what can be observed and are now considering a 'sterile neutrino' and would merely consider it as a particle that doesn't interact. But science may not naturally be inclined to ask 'Why' the neutrino would be able to morph for interaction or why it would do so.

It might open a door to new philosophical exploration - a foundation for morality and much more.

One note (if someone decides to look into it): weak force interaction was measured for the first time in 2018 on a scale that is much larger than would be required to measure neutrino weak force interaction. So some aspects related to neutrino interaction might not be measurable yet.