Are Microbes SMART without a brain?

It's a difficult question to answer. Intelligence is a complex concept, and it's not clear that the same standards we use to measure intelligence in humans and other animals can (or should) be applied to microbes.
Some people may say that they can not be intelligent, because they do not possess a nervous system. But is this a requirement for intelligence?
Some say that intelligence is not an inherent genetically coded property, but rather an emergent property. Yet others might say that they are intelligent because they behave in such a way.
One thing that is certain is that microbes are highly adaptable and able to survive and thrive in a wide range of environments. Some are also be able to communicate with each other in certain circumstances using chemical signaling. But should these characteristics count as a form of "intelligence"?
In this video, I take a closer look at the concept of microbial intelligence and explore some of the ways in which microbes demonstrate what might be considered intelligent behavior.
🎈 SUPPORT - Become a Patron: / microbehunter
👜 AMAZON AFFILIATE SHOP - As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
US/World: www.amazon.com...
Canada: www.amazon.ca/...
Germany/Europe: www.amazon.de/...
UK/Europe: www.amazon.co....
🖂 NEWSLETTER - www.microbehunt...
💻 WEBSITE - www.microbehun...
RECOMMENDED MICROSCOPY PRODUCTS (Affiliate links)
Stellar 1-T (Achromat): amzn.to/3lD7QkA
Stellar 1 Pro-T (Plan): amzn.to/3Adikeu
SW380T: amzn.to/3fB76c4
SW350T: amzn.to/3AjxE9G
SW150 (introductory microscope): amzn.to/3jzCbOx
Stereo: amzn.to/2Vw0Jzs
Slides, Cover Glasses: amzn.to/3jvIJxt
Pipette: amzn.to/3xA8QZi
#microbehunter #biology #intelligence

[@____.__._.._]

I can add that "intelligent Paramecia" are mentioned in Richard's Feynman biography, in his young scientist period. However, the emergency is key here: as many branches of science show, complex behaviour can arise from simple starting variables. For us the plain water might be a very complicated place for microorganisms: lots of different substances, temperature and pH gradients. And those reactions are "intelligent", they make sense, for example as you mentioned the positive response towards acids suggesting food, and negative response towards, let's say ATP, which suggests that a cell nearby is killed and cell wall is broken. It all triggers some response (driving of cillia) via the receptors, and since there are many at one time, and paramecium is quite fast runner, it appears as complex. We have recently discovered the Piezo1 protein in fly, which is a mechanosensor, maybe something like this is driving the cillia. I'm interested in another topic in Paramecium: they start to conjugate more often, if they are hungry. So somehow the regulation of metabolism and mating are connected, and I want to find how.

[@sphinxxxx9898]

🤣👍👍👍 My 6 years old son finally got his first microscope for Christmas. He loves science, especially biology, so he couldn't wait until our little sample began to show life (a piece of banana skin in rain water with a tiny bit of garden soil to help it all along). He spent hours observing the creatures (same kinds shown in this video) and I joined in, finding myself thinking in the same lines, questioning the beginings and possible limits of intelligence. Am so glad to have received a notification of this new video contemplating the same subject. Life is absolutely amazing!👍👍👍

[@eugenetswong]

Thanks for sharing your experiences. I never thought about using banana peels, but that makes sense.

[@bertrc2569]

Well said! Every aspect you addressed is currently controversial so you couldn't give a definitive answer. My feeling is that single cells must be more than reactive else they would not survive, long term. A simple reactive cell would use up local resources then sit and starve, eventually. That is, life could not survive, long-term without intelligence. Emergence is controversial too. I see intelligence as an essential part of life. Language, algebra and philosophy for example, are emergent from massed intelligence. And by massed intelligence I mean more than one brain. All human achievements result from multiple minds building on each others intelligent thoughts. I think this was the reason the Greek academy was so effective. Really pleased to see you following this line. You have my subscription.

[@zibobpompon5768]

The problem in fact regarding the fact to qualify something or any organism as intelligent is to point out firstly the fact that there are levels or a scale related to the complexity of the organism you want to qualify as intelligent or not , so for me the position of this problem should be formulated differently because every organism is adapted to the task he has to solve , and you are not going to perform a Turing test on an amide because you already know the answer but may be even a simple ciliate can perform or do something that a human can't, and one are not going to conclude that this or that organism is not intelligent , so for me, i prefer to check if this organism in its own environment is more suitable to survive better than another one or has developed some finest ability than its neighbour and most of the time the complexity or the aibility to change or evolve their built in function is a form of intelligence .

[@AbyssalManta]

I think this actually decomposes into two questions: 1 - Do microorganisms experience any form of qualia; do they have an inner life? Do they experience pleasure when their sensors spot food, fear when they detect a threat, revulsion when they detect a harmful chemical? 2 - Is there within their cells any physical mechanism that operates in a way ANALOGOUS to a nervous system? Does any sort of data processing occur? Is data stored as memories and flags to inform and modify future behavior?

[@WwarpfirewW]

their "memory" is stored in not direct way but in DNA, when one survives and reproduces, he then gives his learned "experience" to another cell

[@bradnelson3595]

A well-considered analysis. Perhaps the quandary is we're dealing with immaterial qualities and we have to make some kind of judgment about it based upon so much that is not known. If you put a human brain cell under a microscope, you'll not find intelligence nor consciousness. Be we are intelligent and conscious...enough so to wonder if the little bugs we see under the cover glass have some shade, form, or type of intelligence...possibly even a type of intelligence so foreign to us that we wouldn't recognize it as such.

[@WwarpfirewW]

@@bradnelson3595 still we judge it in relevance to our thinking, many animals were considered non intelligent or self avare but this is still changing, many birds and mammals are able to express themselves, maybe even thinking about their own life. It needs very complex way of cellural interaction but something more we yet don't understandz for example brain mass is no more considered as a must for intelligence, thus the way brain is structured is more important. Thinking about it more, humans are able to construct abstract thoughts not connected to reality, only powered by believ or trust, would be interesting if animals do similar thing

[@WwarpfirewW]

I think that for humans intelligence means ability to use and change environment for some purpose in a way, that we can be more effective, maybe we are not fully inteligent as well, because we know many things, learn and experience but still we are ruled by our social behaviour - what I means is we knew what is "bad" but still we are repeating these things, unable to overcome love, hatred, jelousy etc. very deeply programmed behavioral patterns given by evolution.

[@deltalima6703]

Intelligence is the ability to learn. Your definition would imply hawking was not intelligent without his chair, since he would be completely ineffective. Seems absurd.

[@alexjinks6172]

Is it possible that the water pressure close to the bubble is greater so the micro organisms are not comfortable ?

[@ElekZoliSopron]

The Turing test should be used in reverse. Humans tend to see intention in lightning as well.

[@mauritsius1]

I think the ability to calculate and evaluate solutions outside of one's nature or physical ability is to be considered intelligent. For instance people are intelligent because we can travel at high speeds by using a car while in nature we are not designed to be able to do so.

[@swhite8381]

We are all LIFE . This includes everything . There is no separate entity apart from this life . We humans THINK we are separate from everything else but we are not. Everything is running by energy acting and reacting and responding to everything else . The amoeba , the birds, the humans , even the weather . It’s just life .. living. Beautiful

[@Wizthings]

George Boole attempted to apply algebra to human thought. He said "we think in a series of fleeting moments". He reduced thought to the simpelist form as we experience it. An entity ether is or it isn't, true or false. Boole's algebra had no useful application in his life time. In more recent years it beame the backbone of the digital revolution, facilitating computers to space travel. Geoffrey Hinton is a pioneer in artificial intelligence and worked at Google as Head of research, he was asked if the Google search engine could think? He replied "yes". He is the great grandson of George Boole.

[@sprwil]

Very interesting - thank you!

[@dashgautier782]

I would find it interesting if you put NEURONS under the microscope (they don't have to be human)

[@seattleareatom]

The bacteria group movement reminds me of murmuration when some flocks of birds fly in unison. Some think the universe is an intelligence. Hence what's part of the universe i.e. bacteria is blessed with an intelligence.

[@pierreracine128]

very interesting, professor

[@pamelamorosko7527]

yes there is a form of "life" intelligence. I mean it may not have a brain and nervous system yet it actively seeks out food and mates etc. trees dont have a brain or nervous system either but they know when they are under attack and sends signals to nearby trees. the intelligence may be in their life auras. you never know something we have not discovered yet. it's not like they just float there and if food gets in their mouth they live and if it dont they die. I've seen some micros actively seek food. maybe someday we will understand more.

[@evanthompson116]

It’s hard to tell under a microscope it would be different if we had a way to observe them in the wild/ their natural environment.. it would be like putting people in a small room with very little oxygen but we know on the other side of the room there’s more oxygen idk it makes sense it did in my head lol

[@eugenetswong]

Also, maybe intelligence might relative to the context. When cells search for food or avoid certain substances, then that is intelligent, according to my standards, but it pales in comparison to the intelligence of that AI chat bot's ability to come up with info and especially debug program code.

[@deltalima6703]

If you do not use a coverslip and are careful sampling you can see microbes in the wild under the microscope. Usually need to keep the slides in a humidity controlled space for a few days before observing too. In soil is tricky but possible.

[@nicoackermann2249]

6:23 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the human heart has 40k neurons itself! That's pretty interesting I think, also because communication ratio between the brain and the heart is 10/90. I think it's somewhat intelligent.

[@MrBat000]

Thank you for answering my question.

[@Michael-nz9bq]

This was a great one!

[@emannoma1862]

I would like to see tetracycline effect on bacteria from mouth or saliva

[@Colaris99]

I am a little confused, I think I am right in saying that I recall you mention that micro organisms do not have a nervous system. How do you explain the fact that you often seen organisms react to their surrounds, like changing direction when they collide with something and I have seen myself vorticella recoli when thing come to close?

[@Microbehunter]

They respond to the environment (like all living things do, eg also plants) but they do that without a nervous system. They have other mechanisms in place, eg. receptors in the membrane that sense chemicals etc. Another example: human sperm cells are also able to move towards an egg cell by following a chemical gradient, but they do not have a nervous system.

[@007ITZA]

Attn: Oliver Kim I've seen a couple of videos of yours about whether microorganisms are intelligent. I would personally define intelligence as behaviour that demonstrates something is under intelligent control. This can be via coding eg heat seeking missile (intelligence involved but via an intelligent agent coding). But it is where perception capacity and motility capacity via physiological means coexist that it evidences intelligence of a non human created nature. The definition is irrelevant though. Whether someone classifies goal directed non random motility as intelligence or not, the phenomenon still needs an explanation in terms of ultimate cause. Imagine a leaf in the wind. For several seconds it may falsely appear to have agency and be mistaken for, say, a butterfly. But it would soon be apparent its movement is purely governed by external forces. Convection, fluid flow eg a river, magnetism, gravity, wind, chemical gradients etc can all cause movement. However, none of these would give us true "under intelligent control" behaviour. The issue is: how can a random movement eg via a proto flagella suddenly hit non random such that the enhanced fitness can be perpetuated through heritability? Randomly hitting upon a food source may be advantageous but the luck factor is not heritable. And the "under intelligent control" behaviour we observe (with no CNS) is not illusory nor just infinite random movements happening to mimic goal direction. It would seem impossible (not only statistically impossible) for this to arise via random mutations etc. The only explanation I can see is that the potentiality was fundamental and evolution's involvement is in the production of the physiology to facilitate it. Similar in a way to qualia, where physical manifestations evolve that hone in on the experiences that HAD to be a potentiality (if it wasn't a potentiality then it could never arise even through emergence). I just cannot see how "under intelligent control" can arise via a skyhook / picking itself up by its own bootstraps. Why is it important? The natural state would be that "under intelligent control" should never occur without mind. It isn't that it only appears to emulate mind. How can there be a transition from random otherwise because, other than accepting certain fundamental forces that cause movement as axiomatic eg gravity (which itself is in need of an ultimate cause explanation), the whole point of infinite non random goal oriented behaviour is that it indicates a phenomenon that just cannot occur by chance. It is literally impossible without there being a kind of force (mind) that differs from non random or basic external forces based movement. Many biologists are so hypnotised by natural selection that they assume "oh, it is highly beneficial to have goal directed motility and so it evolved" ie as if evolution can harness the non random goal oriented capacity; yet evolution does not have the power to bring about this transition. It has to be a latent capacity. The big issue with methodological naturalism is it causes most scientists to avoid following the evidence as it makes a huge assumption that there cannot be fundamental consciousness/intelligence/Source etc. There are countless other pieces of evidence that there is fundamental consciousness but I'm really keen to see if there is a way the transition described can arise without there being fundamental intelligence. As mentioned, the transition from random movement (or via external forces) is a far cry from "under intelligent control". I will post this under the appropriate video you made to see if it attracts comments off informed viewers also ;) Best wishes Cc Michael Levin, Rupert Sheldrake, Robert Lawrence Kuhn, Pim Van Lommel

[@ruud9767]

That was interesting.

[@deltalima6703]

Intelligence is the ability to learn. Intelligence is not binary, it is analog. I think intelligence is also emergent, meaning that a large group of cells may be more intelligent than a single cell. Conciousness is a seperate concept from intelligence, and might be emergent from intelligence. There is a LOT that I do not know when looking at the question in this much detail. For example: a reflex is learned, and thus intelligent. I am talking here about when I do something that is too fast to think about, spinning poi jumps out for me personally, but playing a musical instrument is an obvious example too. A reflex is hard coded though, built on structure in the spine and not on a easily changed neural net in the brain, the timeframe on building it is much longer. Does that 'count' as intelligence? Some reflexes are hard wired from the start and not learned at all, the kick after a tap from a rubber mallet at the doctors office for example. This seems to not be an example of intelligence. Until I consider that maybe it just occurs on a longer timeframe, did my ancestors 2 million years ago have that reflex? DNA is long timeframe coding that is obviously responsible for the vast majority of 'learning' and thus 'intelligence' on the planet.

[@deltalima6703]

Are those microbes on the slide intelligent? I dont know. In my opinion? Some communities of microbes, slimes, forest ecosystems, persons, dogs, crows, ... definately are intelligent. For individual microbes I am not so sure, not on short timescales at least. Yeah, but if you had to guess? No, they are not intelligent. They are as highly evolved as I am, and amazingly good at what they do, but they behave systematically, they do not learn.

[@georgieman1910]

What species are the smaller ciliates around the Paramecia at 2:42?

[@Elmswood85]

Of course, a microorganism can be "intelligent". A nervous system is not relevant. A machine can beat you at chess, translate more languages than you, can analyse an image faster than you blink, ChatGPT can answer your questions etc, etc, etc. It takes very few instructions to generate a Turing Machine. A microorganism has the required properties. A slime mold can solve a maze, bacteria defeat medical developments such as antibiotics. The challenges they face and their timescales are not the same as those of people - so don't judge wetware by human bias. Get away from the vague and meaningless language bias. Biology is smart. I have covered all this elsewhere. Something to think about: evolution of a (machine) intelligent organism is not what Darwin assumed.

[@handledav]

ye

[@2222MalayalamElectronics]

Seems similar to aliens taking a sneek peek into our blue rock's dimension and the humanity over there..❤😂 and a paramecium typing odd comments 😮 Thanks for the video 😂

[@grzezoch]

I think your footages will be more educational, if you add info about zoom (and speed if is different from 1x) to microscope images. Something like in "Journey to the Microcosmos" footages.

[@deltalima6703]

He cannot, zoom requires him to know your screen size, which he does not.

[@grzezoch]

@@deltalima6703 You are not right. Viewers don't care about screen magnification. They (I) want to know what were settings on microscope to imagine sizes or duplicate experiment.

[@deltalima6703]

If you make the screen small enough then they are life sized, or you can zoom in and use an IMAX screen to get 2500X. Like it or not, that is why Oliver does not display zoom. Honestly, if you are repeating the experiment then you already know how big a rotifer is and can easily use appropriate objective, and eyepiece will always be 10x, for other reasons.

[@andregomesdasilva]

I don't understand the difference between being programmed and being intelligent, on the way you are putting. For me, it's exactly the same thing. Things that are programmed in a very complex way altends to act in equal complex way, and that's what we loselly call intelligence. I'm including humans on this conclusion. The emergent properties comes exactly from the programmed cells interacting togeter, or "programmed" organelles, it's all the same.

[@Ruba_Harfeil]

Thanks microbehunter I wonder if you could make a video of How to use immersion oil Cheers

[@dashgautier782]

He already has, you can look into his older videos to find an amazing explanation on immersion oil.

[@Ruba_Harfeil]

@@dashgautier782 Thanks

[@james67693]

...a 'Scientist' would devise experiments to determine the 'intelligence'... 😄😄

[@sdrc92126]

There an excellent book you should look into called _Vehicles: Experiments in Synthetic Psychology_ by Valentino Braitenberg