Physics is sometimes taken as the “hard problem” for rhetoric of science – if you can find rhetoric in physics, which is ostensibly the least rhetorical of the sciences, then you can find it in the other sciences too. In that sense, bacteria might be the hard problem for scholars of cognition – if bacteria turn out to be irreducibly cognitive, then all animals are probably on a consciousness continuum from human consciousness to total unconsciousness. And wouldn’t you know it:
Bacteria–and by extension unicellular eukarotes–have long been considered to simple, too reactive and too determined to be a member of the cognitive gang. However, Pamela Lyon argues that this exclusion is unwarranted. She suggests that bacteria are sensitive, communicative and decisive organisms and bacterial responses are more flexible, complex and adaptable than generally believed. In terms of re-defining cognition, Lyon argues that behaviour at the microbial level is precisely what must be understood in order to comprehend how more complex and specialized forms evolved and now function. Lyon claims that cognition is part of basic biological function, like respiration.
The link goes on to describe Lyon’s case study of myxococcus xanthus. We don’t have nearly enough game on philosophy of consciousness to even check whether there’s work being done by conflating different senses of consciousness (which is where this paper is probably weak, if it’s weak anywhere…) But it’s a fascinating read, and there’s even a short overview of some of the key terms at stake in the debate – always useful in that Wikipedia “what’s the terrain of this argument” kind of way.
References:
* Bacterial Cognition [Philosophy of Memory]
Previously:
* Particle Physicists Do It Transparently Through The Rumor Mill (Plus: Promote NCA Open Bar Transparency!)
* Pre-Darwinian Empiricism Read Through Peirce
* Disturbingly, Quantitative Analysis May Have Methodological Shortcomings – Blogosphere Edition
