Introduction and Core Concepts
- Discussion on the intersection of Michael Levin’s work on bioelectricity and morphogenesis and Bernardo Kastrup’s analytic idealism (a form of objective idealism). The core idea is that nature is fundamentally mental, but not in the sense of individual minds; rather, it consists of “mental states at large.”
- Kastrup uses psychiatric dissociation (dissociative identity disorder, formerly multiple personality disorder) as a model. Dissociative processes have a physical appearance when imaged (e.g., brain scans). He proposes that life/biology/metabolism *is* the appearance of dissociation within a transpersonal field of subjectivity.
- Levin’s work focuses on the scaling of minds and how the boundaries between a “self” and the “outside world” (or other minds) are formed. He, simliarly to Kastrup, talks of dissociation in cells.
Embryogenesis, Dissociation, and Boundaries
- Embryogenesis begins as a single “blastoderm” (a flat disc of cells). It’s not genetically predetermined how many individuals will arise; it’s determined physiologically. Scratching the blastoderm can create separate, self-organizing embryos (and eventually conjoined twins).
- This illustrates the plasticity of boundaries and the initial “pool of potentiality.” Cells must “decide” what constitutes “self” versus “world.”
- Cancer is viewed as a “somatic dissociative disorder” where cells shrink their “cognitive light cones” and treat the rest of the body as external environment. This is a failure of the cognitive “glue” that binds subunits.
- Levin see’s cancers as somatic dissociative disorder of collective intelligence, agreeing with Kastrup.
Morphogenesis and Top-Down Causation
- DNA provides the “bricks” (proteins), but something else determines how those bricks are assembled (e.g., into Cologne Cathedral, not just a pile of bricks).
- Embryos have a “goal” – a specific journey in anatomical morphospace. Individual cells don’t “know” the final form (e.g., a salamander’s limb), but contribute to a large-scale, cybernetic system.
- Levin proposes “top-down causation” where the higher-level goal (target morphology) shapes the “energy landscape” of lower levels (cells and molecules).
- This goal isn’t captured by analyzing just by zooming into, local interactions.
Decoding Bioelectric Patterns
- Levin’s lab uses techniques from neuroscience (neural decoding) to “read” the large-scale bioelectric patterns of tissues. These patterns reveal the “goals” of the tissue and predict future development.
- They can reprogram these patterns (e.g., making two-headed planaria) by manipulating the bioelectric interface (ion channels and gap junctions) – *not* by changing the DNA. The revised “target morphology” is then maintained.
- Where the large scale ‘goals’ orginate: It’s probably beyond evolution and related more with mathematics’ rules and constratins in a way.
Novel Creatures and Plasticity
- Evolution creates *problem-solving agents*, not just solutions to specific problems. Life exhibits incredible plasticity.
- Examples: Tadpoles with eyes on their tails can see immediately (no evolutionary adaptation required). This challenges the notion that evolution is the *sole* source of these patterns.
- The “latent space” of possibilities is much larger than what we typically observe. Examples include plant galls induced by wasps, revealing potential forms not directly encoded in the plant’s genome.
Hardware, Software, and Problem-Solving
- While DNA provides essential “hardware” (proteins), it doesn’t fully determine outcomes. The “hardware/software” analogy is helpful.
- Example: *Nematostella* embryos can have varying numbers of chromosomes (4N, 6N, 8N, etc.) and still develop normally. Cell size adjusts, and even single cells can form tubules by bending. This demonstrates problem-solving at multiple levels (cell-cell communication, cytoskeletal bending).
- Embryos have a “beginner’s mind,” adapting to what they have, not overtraining on priors. This challenges the notion of fixed, genetically determined programs. Two-headed planaria have no genomic differences; the two-headedness is encoded in electrical memories.
- Cancer cells can be coaxed to behave in ways conducive to the over-arching, healthy tissue when its bioelectircal signals are tampered with.
Planaria and Memory Imprint
- Planaria trained, headless, regenerate new brains that, can remember trained skills: which suggest, info imprint of skills (from previous brain) being implemented on new brain.
- Imprinting must of been performed by rest of the old body. But, not sure where.
Chimeras, Composite Beings, and Boundaries
- Embryos can be *combined* (not just separated) to form single individuals. Xenobots are a simpler model, where dissociated skin cells self-assemble.
- There might be something special about lineages (continuous self-assembly), but the boundary between self and world is highly plastic. The number of “selves” can change over time.
- Chimeras (e.g., cats black on one side, orange on the other) have different DNA. You can combine frog and axolotl cells. Life is remarkably interoperable due to its problem-solving nature.
- Later, cells and tissues can still connect via biological interface to create functional organization or units. Mice, who share linked brains from thousands of miles away can cooperate to solve tasks.
Unified Consciousness in Xenobots?
- There is coherence.
- Xenobots (at least the skin-cell-only kind) *may* have unified consciousness. Levin’s lab is investigating this using measures of integrated information processing (like those used in neuroscience).
- Looking for behaviors (in their unique space).
- Behavioral and physiological evidence, including calcium activity patterns, will be used to assess the level of integration. The question is whether cells are acting separately or as a coherent whole.
- Potentially sleep patterns may be used to determine this too.
Internal Dissociation and Attention
- Even within humans, there are “internal dissociative boundaries.” We don’t consciously introspect into liver or kidney function, likely for evolutionary reasons (efficiency).
- Analogy: Riding a bike becomes automatic (dissociated) after training. We *can* take deliberate control, but it’s inefficient. Breathing is similar.
- The Exclusion Principle of IIT (Integrated Information Theory) could relate to this. Attention restricts experience to a narrow area, “boosting” it at the cost of peripheral vision. High information integration in certain brain areas (e.g., default mode network) may lead to exclusion of other processes.
- All parts of a body may show signals related to intelligence and consiouness (not just brain) because evolution may act and promote cognitive properties/traits in other tissues and cells, just at a slower pace.
- Cancer represents a *fundamental* dissociation, where cells no longer follow the global template. This is distinct from the “normal” internal dissociation between, say, the brain and the liver.
- Organs can also compete with each other to be more influencial in a developing being, especially early on in development.
Metamorphosis, Memories, and Past States
- Metamorphosis presents another major change that organisms/agents may encounter during its existance, for instance, caterpillers that change completely in a hard-body butterfly from soft-bodied state.
- Caterpillar/butterfly metamorphosis involves significant brain restructuring, yet memories can be retained. This raises questions about the location and nature of memory.
- Kastrup speculates that if memory is access to *past states* (which are not physically observable), then it may not have a physical correlate. This contrasts with the view of memory as a “file on a hard disk.” It would be hard to study in Planaria, Rat, etc because they are non-physical phenomenon in nature.
- Kastrup discusses and debates panpsychism versus consiousness.