Friday, September 18, 2020

slime and minds

My intellectual career began with the reading of two books under the guide of an excellent teacher: Jeffrey Wallin.  The Crisis of the House Divided, by Harry Jaffa, convinced me that the principles of the Declaration of Independence, as articulated by Abraham Lincoln, provided a solid foundation for an understanding of justice.  All human beings are in fact created equal, endowed by the laws of nature to certain unalienable rights. 

Natural Right and History, by Leo Strauss, convinced me that the account of justice articulated by the Socratic philosophers-Socrates, Plato and Xenophon, and Aristotle, was superior to the relativism and historicism that then still dominated the historical and social sciences.  At the bottom of this choice was a fundamental metaphysical question: are human beings part of the natural order, such that human nature can be understood in the way that the nature of other living things can be understood?  Or are the human things-individual psychologies and collective cultures-somehow sequestered, walled off from our biological nature? 

There was never any good reason to believe the latter.  It has become increasingly untenable.  By contrast, the Socratic approach now has compelling support from modern biology.  Just as human beings share much of our natural endowment with other living organisms, so those organisms should present at least elemental forms of our highest spiritual capacities.  If anything unifies the Socratic approach it is the idea that the nature that surrounds, if not possessed of logos, is at least logical. 

Powerful support for that idea is found in recent research into the humble slime mold.  Slime molds are republics of amoebae.  The citizens of that republic are single eukaryotic cells.  As they grow they form clusters and then tubes that squeeze columns of their brethren alone, like tooth paste squeezed out the nozzle.  These tubes grow out in search of food. 

The current episode of NOVA is a marvelous account of how intelligent these slime mold colonies are.  They can navigate a maze.  They can explore corridors and quickly abandon fruitless routes.  They can learn where they have been before and learn that certain unpleasant routes (a salt covered bridge for example) are nonetheless the routes to plentiful food sources.  How they do all this is the next mystery, but they do it. 

I am hesitant to call this behavior intelligence, as the scientists interviewed are tempted to do.  For my part, that is a translator’s bias.  I translate the Greek nous as intelligence, and nous indicates an understanding of what something really is.  That requires a conscious mind.  Slime mold amoebae have no brains or nervous systems.  It is unlikely that they are conscious. 

I have no hesitation in saying that the slime mold colony presents a mind.  The colony acquires information about its environment and processes that information into action strategically.  If that’s not mind, I don’t know what is. 

I am, I would like to tell myself, capable of nous.  This is because my brain is a much more sophisticated thing than a slime mold colony.  In one respect, it is much the same.  My brain has about eighty-six billion neurons.  These are just single cells capable interesting electro-chemical reactions, but they are wired together in such a way as to allow me to read Plato’s Republic.  This doesn’t mean that my thinking is reduced to mere slime.  It means that the slime had the potential for philosophy.

4 comments:

  1. This was a wonderful post. And it's particularly interesting to me because it ties into the debate over when humans become concious and what you can do with them before they meet that definition. When they can be said to have rights and when they cannot. Some people have suggested that abortion is moral only after 18 weeks, because that is when an unborn child might be concious of something like pain. Others suggest that real awareness means the ability to reflect and some people believe that even infants that are already born are not capable of this. Others believe conciousness starts much earlier and there's some debate over whether the cerebral cortex is a necessary component of this kind of awareness. Do you have any thoughts on this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I do. As far as I can tell, only conscious beings have moral standing. Assuming, arguendo, that this is so, conscious beings are not conscious all the time. Does their moral standing change when they sleep?

    Aristotle's thorough functionalism is helpful here. An eye is only genuinely an eye when it can function as an eye in the activity of sight. It is actually functioning so when the eye-endowed animal is seeing, but potentially functioning when the eyelid is closed. See the de Anima. If the eye's ability to function is destroyed, it makes no difference to the reality of the organ whether the organism was awake or not.

    The moral standing of a human being depends rests on much more than the consciousness of pain and pleasure. It rests on the capacities for happiness and for empathy and moral responsibility. It suddenly occurs to me that Justice Blackman's opinion in Roe rests entirely on this point (the fetus can't do any of the activities protected in the Constitution). That he was in possession of even part of an argument is no small surprise.

    Just as a person has the same moral standing whether she is awake or asleep, so an infant has the same moral standing as an adult even though her capacity for self-government is as yet not fully realized. If that is sound, then the same applies to the unborn. From the very beginning, the human being is slowly waking up.

    Here I take my standing. All human beings are created equal, male and female, red and yellow, black and white, already born or not yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you very much. This was beautifully written and reasoned.

    ReplyDelete