Live data from Hacker News

The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

jsomers.net

201–210 of 225 posts

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#201

This kind of unicellular complexity & intelligence has long been my soapbox material in the AGI debate. Even long before the current LLM craze, people were counting neurons in the brain and making bold claims about machine intelligence - in just X years, we'll have a machine with the computational power of the brain! But of course, every neuron in the brain is bafflingly complex and we still don't know or understand…

> But of course, every neuron in the brain is bafflingly complex and we still don't know or understand how that complexity manifests itself in thought and intelligence.

Indeed.

Biophysics of Computation: Information Processing in Single Neurons challenges this notion, using richly detailed experimental and theoretical findings from cellular biophysics to explain the repertoire of computational functions available to single neurons. The author shows how individual nerve cells can multiply, integrate, or delay synaptic inputs and how information can be encoded in the voltage across the membrane, in the intracellular calcium concentration, or in the timing of individual spikes: https://www.amazon.com/Biophysics-Computation-Information-Co...

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#202
This is wonderful! If you want to go deeper, I highly recommend the textbook "Molecular Biology of the Cell". I discovered it in a bookstore 20 years ago and it consumed me for months. Every paragraph was a revelation. After hearing me speak in awe of this book for years, my wife recently bought the latest (7th) edition, which we're now reading together and I'm still mesmerized. Nothing compares to the astonishing complexity of a cell.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#203

This kind of unicellular complexity & intelligence has long been my soapbox material in the AGI debate. Even long before the current LLM craze, people were counting neurons in the brain and making bold claims about machine intelligence - in just X years, we'll have a machine with the computational power of the brain! But of course, every neuron in the brain is bafflingly complex and we still don't know or understand…

On the other hand, AI doesn't have to be intelligent to be dangerous. Think of viruses for example.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#204

This kind of unicellular complexity & intelligence has long been my soapbox material in the AGI debate. Even long before the current LLM craze, people were counting neurons in the brain and making bold claims about machine intelligence - in just X years, we'll have a machine with the computational power of the brain! But of course, every neuron in the brain is bafflingly complex and we still don't know or understand…

[deleted]

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#205
post #186
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing most people have difficulty wrapping their head around. What you need to remember is it's not the structures evolving, it's the instructions evolving. If for example you have a small molecular pump that the cell uses to suck up sodium ions, and a mutation causes the part of the rotor sticking out of the cell to just be longer, which might be due to a single change to the gene controlling the length o…

But again you're starting with a fairly complex system already, the molecular pump. And my (limited) understanding is that changes that are not useful or helpful would get lost. And additional to that, if an organism has a pump (which it needs to function properly) and that pump suddenly is no pump, it's a very bad flagellum, that organism has a very big problem. It's like if we swapped our arms for wings. Wings are…

> But again you're starting with a fairly complex system already, the molecular pump.

Yes, but it's less complex, and it in turn evolved from even simpler forms. The point is a single mutation doesn't need to create a working flagellum from scratch, it just needs to make it from what's already available. Flagella are complex structures that did not arise until after a lot of other things had already developed.

> And my (limited) understanding is that changes that are not useful or helpful would get lost.

This misunderstanding again comes from the distinction between the features and the instructions. If a mutation isn't harmful, it doesn't get reverted and in fact will spread throughout a sizeable fraction of the population. The thing is that without evolutionary pressure as more mutations occur, they will eventually break whatever the original mutation did, so the feature it coded will eventually disappear, though it can take a long time and it may change significantly before it does. There are some caveats though - a gene might code for multiple features, or may exist on a part of the DNA where further mutations are suppressed anyway, and thus even though the feature provides no advantage on its own there will still be evolutionary pressure to preserve the gene, and thus a neutral or even a slightly bad mutation might be retained indefinitely.

> And additional to that, if an organism has a pump (which it needs to function properly) and that pump suddenly is no pump, it's a very bad flagellum, that organism has a very big problem. It's like if we swapped our arms for wings. Wings are cool, but we wouldn't be able to fly anyway, and we'd have serious problems as humans with no arms and hands.

In this particular case, cells have many molecular pumps, so converting some to flagella is not a very big problem. The benefits of a shitty flagellum did outweigh the cost of losing some molecular pumps, but this is a very real limitation to what evolution can produce. Humans certainly won't evolve wings naturally without a lot of other changes happening first. But at the same time wings have evolved - in the case of birds their ancestors evolved an extremely efficient respiratory system more than 100 million years before they took flight, which helped them survive the great dying and subsequently take advantage of the oxygen rich Mesozoic era. Among these a mutation for hollow bones aided agility on the ground, among these adaptations for feathers helped with retaining body heat, among these adaptations for lunging their arms forward helped them grab prey, among these adaptations for tree climbing allowed them to become better ambushers, and it was among these that sacrificing some of their arm capabilities for shitty wings was a net gain.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this to be an incredibly bizarre thing to say. Nobody is stopping you from thinking anything, of course you're allowed and surely you know this very well. I suspect what you're really saying is "Will you still respect me for being a creationist". And the answer is, LOL of course not. Nobody is entitled to have their wacky ideas be respected. A lot of the "free speech" complaints are really demands that other p…

It’s funny, because the creationists generally feel the exact same about evolutionists. Both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way. Getting caught up in absolutes thinking your interpretation is the gold standard is a sign of an unrefined critical thinking process.

Sheesh someone had fun flagging nearly every single post in this thread… cc @dang for notes?

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#207
post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason we believe in time invariance of the laws of physics is based on observation of old structures in the universe (at least we only have to look back about 4 billion years to the beginning of evolution on earth). So far we have not found any convincing evidence that the laws have changed (either new or different interactions, or the strength of the interactions). I will say all of science is based on faith- t…

I fear you are failing to comprehend how fundamental the axiom in question (is the universal state influenced by actors beyond our comprehension?) really is. There is no experiment that can answer it, any and all observations must be looked at under a lens that is fundamentally influenced by your answer to the question. We can certainly say that the observations look like they may have progressed at the rate we expec…

I thought even creationists rejected the Ussher chronology.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Close enough. You're trying to package your religion as something which it isn't. Creationism is Christian theology, not science. People know this. On some level, you know this.

Of course I know that. And further I know evolutionism is the same. Indeed I opened this entire thread with the statement: "both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way." It would seem you are not paying attention to what is actually being said.

> And further I know evolutionism is the same.

You're dead wrong about this.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#209
post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear you are failing to comprehend how fundamental the axiom in question (is the universal state influenced by actors beyond our comprehension?) really is. There is no experiment that can answer it, any and all observations must be looked at under a lens that is fundamentally influenced by your answer to the question. We can certainly say that the observations look like they may have progressed at the rate we expec…

I thought even creationists rejected the Ussher chronology.

Some might. There are many branches and leaves in both the evolutionist and creationist worldview trees. That axiom is simply a fairly significant trunk-branch.

That said, it is very rare that I hear someone describing themselves as Christian who denies the general 7 day creation story. I happen to personally believe it was seven consecutive days^, but I've heard arguments it could have been seven days with an unknown gap in-between each pair.

^ "day" being the most morally-understandable way of describing the intervals at which the creation occurred. Obviously there was no sun or even light at first, so the concept of a day itself is shaky, and I make no claims as to how many cesium-133 transitions may have occurred in that period, or how far light might have travelled in one of them once it was created, or the magnitude of the various fundamental forces' impact on matter in that period, or really anything related to our understanding of how the dynamics we currently observe may have behaved in those intervals.

Re: The baffling intelligence of a single cell: The story of E. coli chemotaxis

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I know that. And further I know evolutionism is the same. Indeed I opened this entire thread with the statement: "both are faith based responses to questions we cannot answer any other way." It would seem you are not paying attention to what is actually being said.

> And further I know evolutionism is the same. You're dead wrong about this.

In fact, I'm not. Science covers the field of things which can be observed and explained via repeatable tests. The concept of micro-evolution is well within the purview of science, as we can and have observed small changes in populations based on environmental conditions, and we have established many repeatable tests of such phenomena.

Macro-evolution (what I call evolutionism), on the other hand, has never been scientifically observed, explained, tested, or anything of the sort. It is an attempt at creating a fanciful story of how things came to be by extrapolating back from what we see now in entirely unrigorous, untestable, unobservable ways. It fits much more squarely in the category of History, Mythology, and indeed Theology (aTheology?) than "Science".

Post reply on HN