WHERE DOES CONSCIOUSNESS BEGIN?

Is Every Cell Conscious?

A video I recently came across made a rather emphatic claim: every cell in the universe is conscious. According to the video, new research suggests that consciousness did not begin with the brain, but was already present in the earliest cellular life forms, approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

That sounds spectacular. Perhaps even revolutionary.

But the scientific reality is more nuanced.

There is indeed a line of research exploring this possibility. The so-called Cellular Basis of Consciousness hypothesis proposes that forms of sentience and possibly consciousness may extend much further back in the evolutionary history of life than traditionally assumed. However, that is not the same as having empirically demonstrated that every cell is conscious.

There is also scientific criticism of this hypothesis. For example, it is difficult to distinguish between complex biological information processing and genuine subjective experience. The fact that a cell can detect changes in its environment and respond to them does not, in itself, mean that the cell experiences anything. A thermostat also responds to temperature, but we cannot therefore claim that a thermostat acts consciously.

I am not taking a position here on which side of this scientific debate will ultimately prove correct. The Fractal Framework, however, approaches consciousness as a possible emergent phenomenon. It takes this scientific discussion as a starting point and poses a further question.

THE QUESTION BEHIND THE CLAIM

For me, the most interesting question is therefore not:

"Is every cell conscious?"

But rather:

"If consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, where might it arise?"

We tend to associate consciousness with our own experience. We have a brain, a nervous system, thoughts, memories, emotions and a sense of self. From our human scale, it therefore seems almost self-evident that consciousness is connected to a certain degree of biological complexity. But why should we regard that scale as an absolute boundary?

A cell is organised. An organism is organised. A group of organisms can organise itself into a society. Societies form economies, institutions and civilisations. Technology, in turn, creates new networks in which information is collected, processed and exchanged on an ever-larger scale.

This does not mean that a society is conscious. Nor does it mean that an economy is some kind of brain. And it certainly does not mean that every organised structure automatically possesses consciousness. But if another level of organisation were to represent a form of consciousness, that form would not necessarily have to be organised in the same way as human consciousness. The way such a system processes information, enters into relationships and responds to its environment could be entirely different from our human experience of consciousness.

Even within our own human scale, people do not experience consciousness in exactly the same way. Every person processes information from the perspective of their own history, physical condition, environment and individual standpoint, and may therefore respond differently to the same circumstances.

If consciousness can arise at different scales, it is therefore not reasonable to take our own experience as the universal standard for every possible form of consciousness. This is where Scale Relativity plays a crucial role in this approach.

It illustrates how new properties can emerge when components enter into new relationships with one another and form a new level of organisation.

This brings us to Emergence.

CONSCIOUSNESS AS EMERGENCE

Within The Fractal Framework, consciousness is therefore not taken as the starting point of reality. Instead, it is explored as a possible emergent phenomenon. This distinction is important. The Fractal Framework does not claim that every cell is conscious. Nor does it claim that we already know when consciousness arises. It poses a different question.

If new properties can emerge from the organisation of information and relationships, could consciousness arise at multiple scales?

A possible form of [sentience] at the cellular level would not have to resemble human consciousness. It may even be that the concept of consciousness refers to qualitatively different phenomena at different levels of organisation. A cell does not have to experience reality in the same way as a human being.

But sentience could represent a possible initial form of a process through which consciousness continues to emerge within the biological scale.

A human being does not have to experience reality in the same way as a collective system that might potentially emerge at a larger scale. And if a form of technological consciousness were ever to arise, that too would not have to resemble human conscious experience. These are not conclusions. They are questions.

SCALE RELATIVITY

This is where Scale Relativity within The Fractal Framework comes into view.

What we experience as an individual entity from our own scale may, from another scale, be part of a larger organised process. A cell is part of an organism. A human being is part of a society. A society is part of larger economic, cultural and technological networks.

At every scale, the relationships change. And when relationships change, new properties can emerge as well. Perhaps, therefore, we should not only ask where consciousness begins, but also investigate at which scales consciousness might play a role.

That is a much broader question than whether a cell is conscious.

NOT A CONCLUSION, BUT AN OPENING

I therefore find the claim that every cell is conscious too emphatic. But I find the question behind it particularly interesting. Perhaps we have been looking at consciousness for too long from just one scale: the human scale.

It may be that consciousness only arises under very specific biological conditions. It may also be that forms of sentience exist that are far more fundamental than we are currently able to demonstrate. And it is equally conceivable that new forms of organisation can give rise to new forms of emergent properties.

We do not know yet.

And that is precisely why it is worth keeping the question open. The Fractal Framework does not attempt to provide an answer. Its purpose is primarily to offer a different way of looking at things:

Information → Relationship → Emergence → Scale

Perhaps the most interesting question is ultimately not:

"Is every cell conscious?"

But rather:

"What forms of organisation can give rise to consciousness, and at what scales can it emerge again?"

Dave Ruder

Why consciousness is not the origin of existence within The Fractal Framework

Within many spiritual traditions, consciousness is described as the source of existence: the idea that reality originated from a single universal consciousness, of which everything that exists within our reality is a manifestation or a part. The Fractal Framework approaches this idea from a different perspective.

Within The Fractal Framework, there is no absolute Primordial Source, no absolute beginning and no absolute end. Reality is not regarded as something that began at some point in time, but as a continuous process of change, interaction and emergence.

Within The Fractal Framework, consciousness is not a starting point either, but an emergent phenomenon. It is possible that consciousness exists at different scales and organises and manifests itself differently at each scale. What we recognise as consciousness in a complex organism therefore does not necessarily have to take the same form as possible manifestations of consciousness at smaller or larger scales.

A cell, for example, does not have to be conscious in the same way as a human being to be part of an organised process in which information is processed, changes are responded to and feedback takes place. Within The Fractal Framework, consciousness therefore does not have to be a binary concept. It need not be a simple on-off switch, but can manifest itself in different ways and at different scales.

Very cautiously formulated, one could suggest that the universe may possess a form of consciousness at a scale beyond our comprehension, while the Earth may represent another form or scale of consciousness, different from our human consciousness. Even a crystal could, within this hypothesis, represent a form of organised information processing that we do not recognise, experience or know how to describe as consciousness.

This emphatically does not mean that The Fractal Framework has demonstrated that the universe, the Earth or a crystal is conscious. It means that within The Fractal Framework, consciousness is not predefined as a single, specifically human property, but is regarded as a possible emergent phenomenon that may manifest itself in different ways depending on scale and organisation. Everything is process, and many of these processes take place beyond the scale of our perception and experience.

Consciousness is therefore not static either. Even in our own experience, we can see that consciousness fluctuates continuously. We are not equally aware of ourselves, our surroundings, our bodies or the larger systems of which we are part at every moment. Within The Fractal Framework, this is consistent with the principle that everything is process and is therefore subject to change and fluctuation.

But the fact that consciousness is emergent does not mean that it subsequently ceases to have an influence. Once consciousness arises within an organised system, it can itself become part of the feedback within that system. It may therefore influence the further organisation and development of the process from which it emerged.

This is where an interesting distinction arises between this perspective and the idea that consciousness is the Primordial Source of everything. If consciousness is understood as a universal field, of which individual forms of consciousness are, as it were, manifestations or ‘excitation patterns’, a form of unity does indeed emerge. The whole and its parts do not necessarily have to be separate from one another.

But this raises another question. Is this universal field of consciousness static, or is it dynamic? After all, a field can constitute a single whole while continuously changing and fluctuating at the same time. Its various manifestations can interact, change and exchange information without necessarily causing the underlying unity to disappear.

The comparison with a field therefore does not resolve the problem of the Primordial Source; it merely shifts the question. If consciousness is the universal field, what does it mean for this field to assume different states or manifestations? Is that dynamic nature part of consciousness itself? And if so, are we still talking about a static Primordial Source, or are we actually talking about a dynamic process?

Within The Fractal Framework, the latter is precisely the starting point: unity and differentiation do not have to exclude one another. Unity can manifest itself through difference, and difference makes interaction and change possible. The fundamental principle is then not a static source, but the process in which unity, difference, interaction and new forms of organisation continually come together.

We can see an example of this in biology. Ecosystems consist of a great diversity of organisms, yet together they form a single interconnected system. The individual components are different, but it is precisely through their relationships and interactions that a greater form of organisation emerges.

Within The Fractal Framework, this can be regarded as a possible recurring pattern in the organisation of reality: differentiation does not necessarily lead to separation, but can actually provide the conditions for interaction, coherence and new forms of organisation. At different scales, a similar relationship between unity, difference, interaction and emergence may recur, even though its concrete form changes each time.

This gives rise to an interesting philosophical question: If consciousness is the Primordial Source, can that source truly be static?

If the answer is no, and the Primordial Source is dynamic as well, the question changes once again. Consciousness is then no longer an absolutely static starting point, but part of a process. And that is precisely an essential consideration. If the Primordial Source is, on the other hand, entirely static and unchanging, the question arises as to how differentiation, movement, the exchange of information and change could subsequently emerge from that unchanging state.

There is another interesting aspect to consider: the observer is not entirely separate from what is being observed. What we perceive is partly determined by our position, our scale and the way in which we are able to process information. At the same time, our observations and actions can influence the process we observe. Here, too, an interaction arises between the observer and the observed.

This seems to create a fundamental tension between a static origin and a dynamic reality.

Within The Fractal Framework, this problem is approached differently. Consciousness does not have to stand at the beginning of the process. Consciousness can arise within the process and subsequently become part of that process's dynamics and feedback mechanisms. This does not mean that consciousness is unimportant within The Fractal Framework in relation to existence and becoming. On the contrary. Precisely because emergent structures can influence the processes of which they are part, consciousness can play an important role in their further organisation, development and existence.

But this does not automatically make consciousness the origin of reality. Even if we were to suggest that consciousness is the origin of a particular aspect of our reality, the question would remain within The Fractal Framework: what preceded that form of consciousness? After all, if everything is process, an alleged source cannot simply be placed outside the process. Perhaps this is where the fundamental difference lies.

The Fractal Framework does not seek a single, absolute first element from which everything originated. Instead, it seeks to understand how Information, Entanglement, Emergence and Scale Relativity can continually give rise to new forms of organisation.

Within this perspective, reality is not a finished product. Consciousness is not a finished product either, but neither is it a starting point. Nor is there a first scale or a final scale at which the process comes to an end.

Everything is process.

What we experience as a whole at one scale may be part of a larger whole at another. What appears to be an origin at one scale may, from another scale, turn out to be an emergent outcome in its own right.

That is why The Fractal Framework does not need to search for a single Primordial Source. Whatever is identified as the Primordial Source is not the end of the question within The Fractal Framework, but rather a part of a greater process.

Reality does not have to have begun somewhere in order to be continually coming into being.

And perhaps that is precisely what Scale Relativity teaches us: what we experience as a beginning, an end, a whole, a part, a cause or an effect may depend on the scale from which we observe it.

Reality is then not a straight line that begins somewhere and ends somewhere, but a continuously changing network of processes in which information is organised, relationships emerge, structures arise and new forms of reality come into being.

Not consciousness giving rise to reality, but consciousness emerging within reality and subsequently becoming part of the process through which reality is continually reorganised.

Would you like to explore this subject in greater depth? Read the full paper.

Dave Ruder