How to explain the transition of unicellular to multicellular organisms in Bernardos framework of dissociation

[Poseidon]

Yesterday I asked myself: How can we explain the transition of unicellular to multicellular organisms in Bernardos framework of dissociation? The first multicellular organism had to emerge out of an assemble – or a colony – of unicellular organisms. But here comes the problem: Bernardo rejects the notion that the individual subjective fields or minds of dissociated alters could merge into a higher subjective field – that's part of Bernardos critique of panpsychism –, but somehow precisely that must have happened in the very first formation of a multicellular organism, right? Because first you have a colony of this unicellular organisms as dissociated alters in their own right and with their own private subjectivity and then somehow they merge into the first multicellular organism. What happens at this transitory point with the subjectivity of the unicellular organisms, because according to Bernardos view a single cell of my body is not a dissociated alter in their own right anymore – there is nothing it feels like to be a single cell of my body – so at this transitory point from a colony of unicellular organisms to a multicellular organism somehow the single cells forfeit their own subjective perspectives and give rise to a new unified subjective perspective of a new multicellular organism. How exactly does this work? Have anybody an idea? Bernardo, can you help me out?

With best regards to the community!

Yannick

[Bernardo]

Multicellular organisms don't arise from merging of unicellular ones. There seems to have been only one 'merger' early in the evolution of life, which led to (still unicellular) eukaryotes. But multi-cellular organisms arise from division of a single, original, stem cell. This is called mitosis. Every resulting cell has the same DNA of the parent. You were once a single zygote in your mother's womb, which then divided recursively to form your body.

In addition, the fact that our bodies are formed by multiple cells (created through division of the original) must be regarded similarly to the fact that our bodies are formed by multiple subatomic particles: that the extrinsic appearance of our conscious inner life is 'pixelated' is an artifact of appearances, images, representations; not necessarily of the subject that is represented.

[Poseidon]

Thank you for your prompt answer Bernardo!

[Jim Cross]

I can't tell whether what is being asked is about the evolutionary origin or what. However. colonial organisms do form.

Wikipedia:

Multicellular organisms arise in various ways, for example by cell division or by aggregation of many single cells

And there is symbiotic theory for evolutionary origin:

This theory suggests that the first multicellular organisms occurred from symbiosis (cooperation) of different species of single-cell organisms, each with different roles. Over time these organisms would become so dependent on each other they would not be able to survive independently, eventually leading to the incorporation of their genomes into one multicellular organism.[

  

Then there is a colonial theory :

The Colonial Theory of Haeckel, 1874, proposes that the symbiosis of many organisms of the same species (unlike the symbiotic theory, which suggests the symbiosis of different species) led to a multicellular organism. At least some, it is presumed land-evolved, multicellularity occurs by cells separating and then rejoining (e.g., cellular slime molds) whereas for the majority of multicellular types (those that evolved within aquatic environments), multicellularity occurs as a consequence of cells failing to separate following division.[35] The mechanism of this latter colony formation can be as simple as incomplete cytokinesis, though multicellularity is also typically considered to involve cellular differentiation.[36]

 

[Jim Cross]

Years ago I wrote a post relating to this.

https://broadspeculations.com/2013/07/28/life-gets-complicated/

In it I speculated about some folding/unfolding principle relating to how living forms assemble.

Life might have arisen through some basic folding mechanism that began to work through electromagnetic properties of individual molecules . This folding may be the key to the capture of genetic information. We see this folding at almost all levels of life from proteins, nucleic acids, viruses, single cells, and multicellular organisms. We might even go to a lower level to note that carbon itself, the basis of life, seems to have folding and wrapping ability. The basis of organic life is the ring structure of carbon. Almost every component of life is built by combining ring structures with various substitutions and attachments of other atoms.

We see folding/unfolding in proteins, DNA, single cells, and multicellular organisms. 

[T S]

Bernardo: Multicellular organisms don't arise from merging of unicellular ones. 

Wikipedia:  Multicellular organisms arise in various ways, for example by cell division or by aggregation of many single cells

So which is it?

[RHC]

> Multicellular organisms arise in various ways, for example by cell division or by aggregation of many single cells

When thinking about this from an Idealist framing the question to ask yourself is: "Where are the first person perspectives?"  For example coral is a colony organism, that appears as unified being but which is actually an aggregation of organisms, each with own first person perspective.  As far as we know a coral reef does not have an additional combined perspective of its own.  Clearly in terms of observed volition the vast majority of organisms have one first person perspective.  At least as far as we can tell.  Even we are aggregate organisms.  The bacteria that make up our gut biomes process much of the food we eat and each have their own first person perspective on the world even though we cant live without them.  

Does anyone know of even a single living thing that shows clear signs of both an aggregate level of conscious being and a component sub-organism level?  That would be interesting.

[Aeringa Voyno]

Does anyone know of even a single living thing that shows clear signs of both an aggregate level of conscious being and a component sub-organism level?  That would be interesting.

Slime moulds anyone?

[Justin]

Yes, slime molds periodically resolve the 'combination problem' and 'decombination problem' throughout their life.

A Video: Slime molds: When Micro becomes Macro

[Jim Cross]

T.S.

I think Bernardo is mostly correct with some exceptions as long as we are not considering the question from an evolutionary perspective.

When we consider from an evolutionary perspective, it's still theory and guesswork but likely organisms that were aggregations eventually developed a capability to reproduce as a multi-celled organisms, possibly by merging their genes in some way.

I think the explanation revolves around networking and system perspectives. When separate single cell organisms develop sufficient networking and connectivity, they begin to act to a degree as a single unit.

[T S]

2:17 PM (32 minutes ago)

to metaphysical-speculations

Thanks Jim. 

I suppose we have to consider that the volitional states of mind at large completely defy the logic of cause and effect and spacetime. No wonder the intersection with primitive organisms (or their sensory presentation) is such a grey area!

[Dana Lomas]

Just because multiple loci of awareness come together and cooperate in such a way as to appear as an image of such cooperation doesn't necessarily mean that an entirely new individual locus of awareness has been created, such that there's something it feels like to be such a 'subject.' But even if it could occur, what criteria would be used to determine such a conclusion? It's not enough to just say that it looks like might be, for example in the case of a murmuration of starlings

[Bernardo]

I was not talking about evolutionary speculation about the origin of the first multicellular organisms, but about how individuals constituted by multiple cells are formed: they are formed through cell division of a single original zygote. I believe this is the angle of relevance to the OP's question: our seemingly unitary consciousness doesn't form from the combination of originally-independent micro-subjects, for we are formed through cell division, not cell aggregation.

[Dana Lomas]

Bernardo ... presumably then there's something it feels like to be the zygote, i.e. some core subjectivity, that is not affected by its multiplication?

[RHC]

" Just because multiple loci of awareness come together and cooperate in such a way as to appear as an image of such cooperation doesn't necessarily mean that an entirely new individual locus of awareness has been created, such that there's something it feels like to be such a 'subject.' But even if it could occur, what criteria would be used to determine such a conclusion? It's not enough to just say that it looks like might be, for example in the case of a murmuration of starlings "

Exactly.  I actually looked for gif of starlings swarming .

[Aeringa Voyno]

Speaking of zygotes - a zygote is already a fusion of two separate cells. Even if we try to redefine it as the continuation of an egg cell with a little added "extra", slime moulds - that fuse and unfuse into continuous plasmodia - and even less "alien" fungi such as yeast - whose "a" and "α" gametes are morphologically indistinguishable - might want to have a word with us. (Fungi love screwing with our metaphysics, don't they? ;) )

[T S]

Would love to see Bernardo write a book on this stuff - 'abiogenesis', early evolution, cell division, group animal behaviour, pre-cambrian explosion, the lot!

By the way I recommend the work of Manolis Kellis in this area from a mainstream biological perspective.

[Dana Lomas]

AV ... For the record, I'm not yet convinced that core subjectivity, or ipseity, is necessarily associated with the event of 'conception.' And at what point such subjectivity 'enters' into an association with the corporeal image remains largely a mystery to this bit of core subjectivity, not to mention that upon some inexplicable OBE occasions it becomes completely dissociated from that image. Perhaps the shroomish subjects know?

[Bernardo]

presumably then there's something it feels like to be the zygote, i.e. some core subjectivity

Yes.

 

that is not affected by its multiplication?

I think the changes of form the organism undergoes with cell division is the extrinsic appearance of changes in its inner life, which thus does change.  

[Aeringa Voyno]

Dana, neither am I, but I wanted to hear/read Bernardo's thoughts on this matter.

Bernardo, would you then consider tissue excised for, say, a biopsy to still be part of the donor alter (and evidence for survival when it outlives said donor)?

[Justin]

The aggregation of these slim mold amoeba into a "migrating slug" looks to me like a unitary individual being formed from cell aggregation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpdIvlSochk 

(unless it is assumed that slugs don't have a unitary consciousness, but they exhibit the same sorts of behaviors to other organisms for which a unitary consciousness is inferred under idealism or panpsychism).

[David Mendes Pinto]

There appear to be several dimensions involved this thread/conversation: evolution (the time period over which one species evolves into another species, eg single cell to multi-cellular, or multi-cellular to volitional etc, mainly through genetic variation and 'fittingness' to concurrent environment), and concurrent interaction (inter-subjective literally how one organism interacts with another organism such as same species such as slime-mold, ants, starlings, or how different species interact, eg bees and flowers, mitochondria and cells, or different sexes of species eg ants, humans, parts of a tree), and individuation (single cell mitosis, how one individual organism reproduces another organism within environmental conditions). There are interesting questions at all of these junctures, especially if we are attempting to understand or appreciate their subjective state.

There is a tendency to attempt to ask these questions and then answer them based on some model that someone has in their heads, Bernardo's or otherwise, however well-formed their language-model may be, ie 'framework of dissociation'. I would rather we reach an operational threshold of engagement where our subjective communication stabilises, such that the framework of dissociation and association is self-evident in our writing and reading, before attempting to extend our subjective sensibility (and models) to eg the unicellular and multicellular evolutionary transition. I will attempt to find this 'meta' thread if there are any on this group forum, and would appreciate any contributors who are also interested in such a project.

Given my extremely limited exposure to Bernardo's framework, my contribution is mostly my own and thus is only meant to be an observation, nothing more, and it is this: the unicellular and multicellular question is operating simultaneously. From my limited knowledge, the mitochondria in (all?) our cells were originally engulfed and operates in a fully immersed 'symbiotic' relationship within its host cell, similar but at a different order of scale and as noted above, the bacterial biome in our gut. If we accede subjective mind or dissociated alters to entities other than those reading this, we must acknowledge their (indeed, our) temporal, concurrent condition. That is, each aggregate (eg gut biome, organ, cells, mitochondria, human being) is concurrently operating. I have not read enough of Bernardo's work to correctly adopt his wording or model, but the buddhist-inspired contributions indicate there is an equivalent to the buddhist notion of 'interdependence'. Which is to say, there is no 'change' of unicellular to multicellular, but rather, as Bernardo points out, mitosis. How this replication of mitosis eventually leads to us reading here is materially and biologically understood, but the subjective transitions are hardly appreciated and I appreciate any attempt to extend our philosophical considerations in doing so. I look forward to reading more.

[Dana Lomas]

Yes, whether or not a multiplicity of subjects can combine in such a way so as to morph into a new individual subject, the remarkable connectivity, cooperativeness, inter-subjectivity and interdependence of life is undeniable, still suggesting that all such ipseity can be traced to a sole irreducible Awareness.

[Justin]

I agree with those sentiments. Nature is so wondrous and there is so much we don't know that I think it would be premature to foreclose the possibility that a coordinating subjectivity could arise amidst a diversity of subjectivites (perhaps through ways suggested by Whitehead), whether that be in a swarm of starlings, a slime mold slug or a human being.

Speaking of the wonders of nature, I came across this amazing video of the spiraling chemical signaling that goes on in the formation of a slime mold slug:

https://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/192102.php