Tearing Down the Weissman Barrier - w/ Collections of Bio-Electric Fields Completing the Kantian Whole?

Excerpts from the above video:

Evolution is acting on the whole to develop functions. If its' doing that and the functions are that important, this function serves the purpose of the whole.

-------
...An unconscious process that uses the harnessing of stochasticity to produce purposive behaviour is not necessarily intention. I think that's the way I would put it in philosophical terms.

Andrea: Interesting,

That's clearly so, because the immune system is not conscious.

Andrea: How do we know?

Well now, that's a good question, Andrea, we don't know, so it's not our consciousness. No, absolutely.

Andrea: Oh, oh, I like that distinction. Okay, so all we can say for sure is that we're not consciously doing it ourselves, whatever "our" is, and "selves" is, but our bodies are.

Ask the following question, "we exist because cells came together and found the mechanism to be assembling themselves into structures, that is, a body, that has different functions for the different cell types. Now all of those cells were at one time, going way back in the evolutionary process, isolated single cells. There are even organisms that go through stages in their life cycle in which they are just free floating amoeba like single cells and then come together to form the very elaborate spore forming process to reproduce "the colony", if you want to call it that. So, we've all, as multicellular organisms derived from single cells that came together.

Now, the single cell itself is clearly cognitive. It's got, a bacteria has many cognitive features in what it does, and I think it's correct to use the word "cognition" about it. But I don't know what it must be like to be a bacterium, but "I don't even know what it must be like to be a bat", to quote another famous philosopher. And I don't think I need to know that. what I need to know is that evolutionary process has somehow found a way in which my consciousness is not the consciousness of my particular cells. It's something that emerged from the coming together of a vast number of cells in a single organism, a multicellular organism. It makes perfect sense to me that part of those processes are not open to my conscious intent, I don't see why they, it, should.

Andrea: Can we define Cognitive Based Evolution (CBE)? It's an alternative to Neo-Darwinism, it proposes cellular intelligence, Cells that are capable of measuring and responding to their environment. It redefines "life" as fundamental based on cognitive abilities of cells. And "evolution" as a continuous non-random process where cells solve problems to adapt and survive.

Yep, it seems to me that its' correct to say just as AI is cognitive, it's a form of cognition which is enabling a solution to a question, "can you write this essay for me on XYZ" and life is certainly doing the same kind of thing, so I've no hesitation in describing a cell as cognitive. I've no hesitation in describing our nervous system as cognitive. And I don't see why we should have any hesitation in doing that.

Andrea: I think we want to be special, we want to be special in out brains, we want to think that there's this little special orb in our head that has all these special properties that make us all very unique.

If we attribute that to AI, I can't see why we shouldn't attribute it to an even more complicated process, which is the living cell. The harnessing of stochasticity is a purposeful process and therefore, it could also be another definition of purpose.

Andrea: Interesting,

That's how you can get to the neutral description, as the harnessing of stochasticity in the immune system.

---

Plato, "Charmides" (excerpt)

Socrates:...he (Charmides) asked me if I knew the cure of the headache, I answered, but with an effort, that I did know. And what is it? he said.

I replied that it was a kind of leaf, which required to be accompanied by a charm, and if a person would repeat the charm at the same time that he used the cure, he would be made whole; but that without the charm the leaf would be of no avail....

Socrates: ...are you quite sure that you know my name?

Charmides:  I ought to know you, he replied, for there is a great deal said about you among my companions; and I remember when I was a child seeing you in company with my cousin Critias.

Socrates: I am glad to find that you remember me, I said; for I shall now be more at home with you and shall be better able to explain the nature of the charm, about which I felt a difficulty before. For the charm will do more, Charmides, than only cure the headache. I dare say that you have heard eminent physicians say to a patient who comes to them with bad eyes, that they cannot cure his eyes by themselves, but that if his eyes are to be cured, his head must be treated; and then again they say that to think of curing the head alone, and not the rest of the body also, is the height of folly. And arguing in this way they apply their methods to the whole body, and try to treat and heal the whole and the part together. Did you ever observe that this is what they say?

Yes, he said.

Socrates: And they are right, and you would agree with them?

Yes, he said, certainly I should.

Socrates: His approving answers reassured me, and I began by degrees to regain confidence, and the vital heat returned. Such, Charmides, I said, is the nature of the charm, which I learned when serving with the army from one of the physicians of the Thracian king Zamolxis, who are said to be so skilful that they can even give immortality. This Thracian told me that in these notions of theirs, which I was just now mentioning, the Greek physicians are quite right as far as they go; but Zamolxis, he added, our king, who is also a god, says further, 'that as you ought not to attempt to cure the eyes without the head, or the head without the body, so neither ought you to attempt to cure the body without the soul; and this,' he said, 'is the reason why the cure of many diseases is unknown to the physicians of Hellas, because they are ignorant of the whole, which ought to be studied also; for the part can never be well unless the whole is well.' For all good and evil, whether in the body or in human nature, originates, as he declared, in the soul, and overflows from thence, as if from the head into the eyes. And therefore if the head and body are to be well, you must begin by curing the soul; that is the first thing. And the cure, my dear youth, has to be effected by the use of certain charms, and these charms are fair words; and by them temperance is implanted in the soul, and where temperance is, there health is speedily imparted, not only to the head, but to the whole body. And he who taught me the cure and the charm at the same time added a special direction: 'Let no one,' he said, 'persuade you to cure the head, until he has first given you his soul to be cured by the charm. For this,' he said, 'is the great error of our day in the treatment of the human body, that physicians separate the soul from the body.' And he added with emphasis, at the same time making me swear to his words, 'Let no one, however rich, or noble, or fair, persuade you to give him the cure, without the charm.' Now I have sworn, and I must keep my oath, and therefore if you will allow me to apply the Thracian charm first to your soul, as the stranger directed, I will afterwards proceed to apply the cure to your head. But if not, I do not know what I am to do with you, my dear Charmides.

Critias, when he heard this, said: The headache will be an unexpected gain to my young relation, if the pain in his head compels him to improve his mind: and I can tell you, Socrates, that Charmides is not only pre-eminent in beauty among his equals, but also in that quality which is given by the charm; and this, as you say, is temperance?

Socrates:  Yes, I said.