Language of fungi derived from their electrical spiking activity(royalsocietypublishing.org)
royalsocietypublishing.org
Language of fungi derived from their electrical spiking activity
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.211926
132 comments
> In all seriousness mushrooms COULD be conscious
There is a fungus [0]. that takes over a carpenter ant's brain and makes it climb up plants and clutch on to a leaf with it's jaw and hang down from it. The fungus then sprouts the fruiting body from the dangling ant and spreads its spores.
As an armchair theorist, anything that can interface with a brain and coordinate a nervous system to produce complicated movement has to be capable of computation at some level.
[0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis#Na...
There is a fungus [0]. that takes over a carpenter ant's brain and makes it climb up plants and clutch on to a leaf with it's jaw and hang down from it. The fungus then sprouts the fruiting body from the dangling ant and spreads its spores.
As an armchair theorist, anything that can interface with a brain and coordinate a nervous system to produce complicated movement has to be capable of computation at some level.
[0]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis#Na...
People tend to underestimate the ability of very simple systems to result in complex behavior. It is entirely possible that this ant hijacking is entirely done though a few very simple manipulations of the existing ant nervous system and more likely than a much more complex fungal brain replacement.
> It is entirely possible that this ant hijacking is entirely done though a few very simple manipulations of the existing ant nervous system
Hasn't that been ruled out by now though?
(Content warning: Zombie ant fungus details)
I read articles about that fungus and I believe for a long time it was assumed that the fungus rewires something inside the ant's brain that makes it want to climb to the top of a grass blade etc. - so it would "only" manipulate the high-level goals of the ant but not control the more complex and dynamic low-level operations (such as walking or navigating) directly.
However, a few months ago there was a paper about more detailed research on the molecular mechanisms the fungus uses for the takeover. Turns out, the former hypothesis was wrong and in fact it does control the ant's arms/legs directly. If that's true, then the fungus itself must somehow actively steer the ant towards the grass.
Hasn't that been ruled out by now though?
(Content warning: Zombie ant fungus details)
I read articles about that fungus and I believe for a long time it was assumed that the fungus rewires something inside the ant's brain that makes it want to climb to the top of a grass blade etc. - so it would "only" manipulate the high-level goals of the ant but not control the more complex and dynamic low-level operations (such as walking or navigating) directly.
However, a few months ago there was a paper about more detailed research on the molecular mechanisms the fungus uses for the takeover. Turns out, the former hypothesis was wrong and in fact it does control the ant's arms/legs directly. If that's true, then the fungus itself must somehow actively steer the ant towards the grass.
Link please?
This is the article I got the info from: http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/how-the-z...
This seems to be the referenced paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1711673114
I was wrong about it being from a few months ago though. It was released in 2017 already.
This seems to be the referenced paper: https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1711673114
I was wrong about it being from a few months ago though. It was released in 2017 already.
It's unclear from that source that the complex fungal network in the ant is in any way important for controlling ant behavior. It's only speculated.
> It is entirely possible that this ant hijacking is entirely done though a few very simple manipulations
It is entirely possible that human motivations and reasoning are driven by similarly simple mechanisms. The best example I can think of is how much of an asshole I can be to my family when I'm hangry.
It is entirely possible that human motivations and reasoning are driven by similarly simple mechanisms. The best example I can think of is how much of an asshole I can be to my family when I'm hangry.
> The best example I can think of is how much of an asshole I can be to my family when I'm hangry.
Where it gets interesting is it might not even be “you” that is hungry, rather it’s the collective microbiome that sends signals from your gut to your brain telling it to eat for their benefit.
Where it gets interesting is it might not even be “you” that is hungry, rather it’s the collective microbiome that sends signals from your gut to your brain telling it to eat for their benefit.
The complex conscious and unconscious behavior can indeed be manipulated by quite simple things (hunger, stimulants, alcohol) but the complexity does not come from the lever that made the change, it's just pushing levers all over the place of your existing feedback cycles which results in much different outcomes.
Don't know if you did that on purpose, but "hangry" is such a beautiful word.
"Hangry" is now a widespread term. It's even in Merriam-Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hangry
Could we be underestimating the ability of very simple systems to result in consciousness?
No.
I don't think the logistic map is conscious, but it is very complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map
What I'm talking about re: ants is a few chemical signals specifically targeting ant behaviors resulting in the infected behavior. I don't think the fungus is any more conscious than a handful of pills.
I don't think the logistic map is conscious, but it is very complex. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logistic_map
What I'm talking about re: ants is a few chemical signals specifically targeting ant behaviors resulting in the infected behavior. I don't think the fungus is any more conscious than a handful of pills.
You seem to know more about what consciousness is than you're letting on.
Something like in Toxoplasmosa. It's just a random product of evolution, nothing computational.
> The life cycle of the parasite Toxoplasma gondii goes like this: Toxoplasma reproduces inside the intestine of a cat, which sheds the parasite in its feces. Rats then ingest the parasite when they consume food or water contaminated with cat feces. The parasite takes up residence in the rat’s brain and, once the rat gets eaten by a cat, it starts the cycle all over again. > Researchers have known for a few years that a rat infected with Toxoplasma loses its natural response to cat urine and no longer fears the smell. And they know that the parasite settles in the rat’s amygdala, the part of the brain that processes fear and emotions. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-parasite-t...
> The life cycle of the parasite Toxoplasma gondii goes like this: Toxoplasma reproduces inside the intestine of a cat, which sheds the parasite in its feces. Rats then ingest the parasite when they consume food or water contaminated with cat feces. The parasite takes up residence in the rat’s brain and, once the rat gets eaten by a cat, it starts the cycle all over again. > Researchers have known for a few years that a rat infected with Toxoplasma loses its natural response to cat urine and no longer fears the smell. And they know that the parasite settles in the rat’s amygdala, the part of the brain that processes fear and emotions. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-parasite-t...
I always figured it made the ant feel it is about to drown, so it seeks high ground instinctively.
Agree with above statement. Occam's razor. Tons of examples of complex behavioral changes centered around exposure to single substance.
THC --> munchies! Alcohol --> saying dumb things at parties.
I'll bet there is a fungal chemical that disrupts the ant's spacial orientation, and absent of other stimuli, it may have a default program that causes it to seek higher ground.
THC --> munchies! Alcohol --> saying dumb things at parties.
I'll bet there is a fungal chemical that disrupts the ant's spacial orientation, and absent of other stimuli, it may have a default program that causes it to seek higher ground.
Speaking of ants
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/ant-colony-optimization#:~:te....
Armchair theorist as well, but all consciousness aside, it could also be that there's just a simple chemical that makes ants want to climb up (just like some hormones make the human brain want things), so that there's no computation involved, the mushroom might just happen to excrete the right chemical in the right place
Getting the ant to clamp onto the underside of a branch or leaf and then stay there until it dies is a bit harder to explain. However I am also inclined to believe there is a localized mechanism at play, such as locating the jaw actuation through connective tissue RNA. Even so, there must be some basic signaling and state detection at play. It's probably the biological equivalent of a music box that just plays the notes it's been fixed to play, but still interesting.
That seems more likely to me too. Imagine a fungus that could provide dopamine directly to the brain when a human host meets a certain condition (e.g. a certain amount of direct sunlight, humidity, wind).
Not exactly this scenario, but the psilocybe genus produces chemicals very similar to serotonin.
Agree, it's more like they're responding to stimuli, could we derive somehow that their genes have evolved some degree of ... intelligence?
Eh, I'd say that's a point for debate, but I would argue stochastic survival probability under some prior conditions that haven't changed enough to force further competition.
I mean, apparently toxoplasmosis or something like it can result in personality changes even in humans.
Like toxoplasmosis?
If fungus has a language, it means we can 'talk' to it.
So long as we can put electricity in, and get different electric signals out, we have a sort of interface.
If they're sentient, then wow, great. If not, we can probably work out the right signals and species to use in growing a mushroom-based Turing machine.
So long as we can put electricity in, and get different electric signals out, we have a sort of interface.
If they're sentient, then wow, great. If not, we can probably work out the right signals and species to use in growing a mushroom-based Turing machine.
It's not quite "computation", but apparently you can wire a mushroom up to a modular synthesizer and get something resembling music out of it.
Someone has a very entertaining YouTube channel full of this content: https://www.youtube.com/c/MycoLyco. The titles are great too, like "Reishi Talks To Lions Mane About Life In a Bag" (posted 4 days ago).
Someone has a very entertaining YouTube channel full of this content: https://www.youtube.com/c/MycoLyco. The titles are great too, like "Reishi Talks To Lions Mane About Life In a Bag" (posted 4 days ago).
> computation at some level
Unfortunately that term applies to basically everything... computation at every classical level we know only requires "maybe have state, maybe update state in response to environment, maybe move to new environment based on new state, maybe repeat".
Unfortunately that term applies to basically everything... computation at every classical level we know only requires "maybe have state, maybe update state in response to environment, maybe move to new environment based on new state, maybe repeat".
We have quite a bit of evidence that our gut bacteria influence our long term actions and behaviour through neurotransmitter precursors.
Premise 1: Any arbitrary 4D volume in spacetime (i.e., one connected component wrt physical interactions) can be considered a system.
Premise 2: https://xkcd.com/505/
Conclusion: Every system, open or closed, is computational in a certain rigorous sense of implementing dynamics along the space dimensions (versus inputs, via transformations, into outputs) and demonstrating dynamics along the time dimension (flux of the energy+information carried through its constituent parts).
If we can create a "computer" using rocks in a binary-ish encoding, surely we can implement "computers" in more efficient encodings that utilize certain properties of physical reality.
We as humans began to approach this with mechanical computers using complex linkages, but only got so far before we decided on digital (binary) encoding and then enshrined that in silicon. To be sure, binary is a very effective way of organizing computation given our physical implementation(s), but most likely there are way more efficient ways of doing things.
One fascinating direction we are beginning to explore to achieve more efficient computation is marrying machine learning with materials engineering![1]
In fact, by this conclusion, we can only believe that the universe is merely the most efficient way to simulate itself, but this by no means precludes the possibility of simulating it in any other medium (encoding).
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04223-6
Premise 2: https://xkcd.com/505/
Conclusion: Every system, open or closed, is computational in a certain rigorous sense of implementing dynamics along the space dimensions (versus inputs, via transformations, into outputs) and demonstrating dynamics along the time dimension (flux of the energy+information carried through its constituent parts).
If we can create a "computer" using rocks in a binary-ish encoding, surely we can implement "computers" in more efficient encodings that utilize certain properties of physical reality.
We as humans began to approach this with mechanical computers using complex linkages, but only got so far before we decided on digital (binary) encoding and then enshrined that in silicon. To be sure, binary is a very effective way of organizing computation given our physical implementation(s), but most likely there are way more efficient ways of doing things.
One fascinating direction we are beginning to explore to achieve more efficient computation is marrying machine learning with materials engineering![1]
In fact, by this conclusion, we can only believe that the universe is merely the most efficient way to simulate itself, but this by no means precludes the possibility of simulating it in any other medium (encoding).
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04223-6
Cool video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vijGdWn5-h8
[deleted]
Use of the word conscious here is interesting. Is there any doubt that fungi are conscious of what they are conscious of?
I think that we have to be careful. Speaking philosophically it's safe to say that we do not yet have a clear, definitive definition of "consciousness" in scientific terms such that we can safely assess what is or isn't conscious.
Some believe consciousness is what distinguishes humans from lower beasts. Others believe it is an emergent phenomenon of some higher order macroorganisms, dolphins but not cows, monkeys but not fish. Still others believe that plants, fungi, bacteria, and all living things display some level of consciousness.
And some weird folks believe consciousness is a property of the universe expressed in all things, which happens to manifest in forms that we understand and relate to in living organisms due to the inherent bias of observing through the lense of being a biological organism ourselves.
It appears difficult if not impossible to prove which of these definitions is correct!
What seems clear is that the idea of consciousness cuts to the very core of the modern scientific paradigm and world view, such that the inherent assumptions made in building our scientific realism allow us only a very narrow understanding of what is consciousness accompanied by a certainty that what we do understand must be all there is.
That's to say, if you've ever questioned the fundamental axioms of scientific truth you've inevitably bumped into the philosophical problem of consciousness relative to the institution of scientific realism.
So to say, when someone says "we now have proof that X may in fact be conscious!" the statement comes across to some ears as most definitely vague and exactingly inordinate!
I think that we have to be careful. Speaking philosophically it's safe to say that we do not yet have a clear, definitive definition of "consciousness" in scientific terms such that we can safely assess what is or isn't conscious.
Some believe consciousness is what distinguishes humans from lower beasts. Others believe it is an emergent phenomenon of some higher order macroorganisms, dolphins but not cows, monkeys but not fish. Still others believe that plants, fungi, bacteria, and all living things display some level of consciousness.
And some weird folks believe consciousness is a property of the universe expressed in all things, which happens to manifest in forms that we understand and relate to in living organisms due to the inherent bias of observing through the lense of being a biological organism ourselves.
It appears difficult if not impossible to prove which of these definitions is correct!
What seems clear is that the idea of consciousness cuts to the very core of the modern scientific paradigm and world view, such that the inherent assumptions made in building our scientific realism allow us only a very narrow understanding of what is consciousness accompanied by a certainty that what we do understand must be all there is.
That's to say, if you've ever questioned the fundamental axioms of scientific truth you've inevitably bumped into the philosophical problem of consciousness relative to the institution of scientific realism.
So to say, when someone says "we now have proof that X may in fact be conscious!" the statement comes across to some ears as most definitely vague and exactingly inordinate!
Maybe this is closer to spirituality than science, but I’ve been reading Eckhart Tolle and he explains in a few of his books that the whole idea of “I” or “My self” is an illusion that’s created by the ego. This is also the message from a lot of Eastern philosophy.
I would hazard to guess that individual consciousness doesn’t actually exist, so of course a tree can’t be individually conscious because neither can a human. We (both the tree and the human) are part of a collective “consciousness” that is life itself.
I would hazard to guess that individual consciousness doesn’t actually exist, so of course a tree can’t be individually conscious because neither can a human. We (both the tree and the human) are part of a collective “consciousness” that is life itself.
I object to being called weird. It's quite a logical position to hold, many modern philosophers hold a panpsychist or similar view.
Yeah, but panpsychists don't have any mechanism for it. It's just, "Well, if there's an emergent phenomena, it must have emerged from some critical mass of something, therefore your table is conscious."
It's fine for magical world building, but it doesn't really make much sense, and when pressed on it, they just throw up their hands and cry "It's logical!" It's specious. It feels like Descartes and others trying to elevate the pineal gland to be mechacockpit for the soul, or Plato assuming that everything is a projection from some metaphysical form outside of reality.
It's fancy talk, that is pointed -- and sometimes proudly -- unfalsifiable.
It's fine for magical world building, but it doesn't really make much sense, and when pressed on it, they just throw up their hands and cry "It's logical!" It's specious. It feels like Descartes and others trying to elevate the pineal gland to be mechacockpit for the soul, or Plato assuming that everything is a projection from some metaphysical form outside of reality.
It's fancy talk, that is pointed -- and sometimes proudly -- unfalsifiable.
It's literally the opposite of that. The criticism you are levelling is precisely what makes the idea of the strong emergence of consciousness such a joke.
Panpsychists say that consciousness always exists, all the way down, not that it emerges. It is a view born out of the rejection of the kind of emergence you are describing.
Panpsychists say that consciousness always exists, all the way down, not that it emerges. It is a view born out of the rejection of the kind of emergence you are describing.
Literally no panpsychist asserts that a proton has human, or even bacterium level consciousness.
Go do some reading and then come back with an informed opinion because you don't have the basics down.
Others feel that weird is the greatest compliment.
This goes to the age old debate between vitalists and materialists.
In other words, does conciousness/spirit precede and shape matter, or does matter precede and shape conciousness/spirit?
Modern/western science is pretty firmly entrenched in a materialist view. Although it seems more are questioning that these days.
Personally I think that the brain is probably closer to a radio than a CPU. In other words, it is the bridge that enables our ethereal spirit/conciousness to experience and interact with the material world.
Just as hackernews does not exist in my laptop, neither does my "self" exist in my brain. Rather my laptop and my brain are each providing a terminal to a remote realm.
No amount of examining and dissecting my computer will reveal the code that runs hackernews, youtube, google, etc. It would be foolish to suggest it.
Yet that is exactly what neurologists try to do... with predictably miserable results.
In other words, does conciousness/spirit precede and shape matter, or does matter precede and shape conciousness/spirit?
Modern/western science is pretty firmly entrenched in a materialist view. Although it seems more are questioning that these days.
Personally I think that the brain is probably closer to a radio than a CPU. In other words, it is the bridge that enables our ethereal spirit/conciousness to experience and interact with the material world.
Just as hackernews does not exist in my laptop, neither does my "self" exist in my brain. Rather my laptop and my brain are each providing a terminal to a remote realm.
No amount of examining and dissecting my computer will reveal the code that runs hackernews, youtube, google, etc. It would be foolish to suggest it.
Yet that is exactly what neurologists try to do... with predictably miserable results.
Am I reading the abstract correctly that the spike duration is measured in hours though? That's an odd change of scale compared to neurons, especially as the scale of the actual entities (fungal networks vs networks of neuron cells) don't seem that different
Scale is quite different. Consider the density.
mushrooms are certainly not conscious. The information conveyed over the whole of the network by this mechanism is on the order of bits per hour. That particular box is a little small for consciousness to be hiding in. A fruit fly has more processing power than a fungus, by orders of magnitude.
Thats all going to depend the constraints you place on consciousness. Hell in the animal kingdom we struggle to define which animals are conscious and they all have very similar compute hardware.
Mushrooms are so different than anything we know it's hard to rule out what they are or are not doing. There are mycelium networks that span massive spaces, 10s of square kilometers. There is a lot of mass, a tightly interconnected network that senses, computes, and changes its environment. So its hard to really rule anything out yet.
Honestly, I think there is a lot of complexity happening on this planet that we are missing, especially if we open ourselves up to larger timescales.
Mushrooms are so different than anything we know it's hard to rule out what they are or are not doing. There are mycelium networks that span massive spaces, 10s of square kilometers. There is a lot of mass, a tightly interconnected network that senses, computes, and changes its environment. So its hard to really rule anything out yet.
Honestly, I think there is a lot of complexity happening on this planet that we are missing, especially if we open ourselves up to larger timescales.
At some point the word "consciousness" loses its already muddled meaning. Humans are conscious, dogs are conscious, fish are conscious, mollusks are conscious, insects are conscious, bacteria is conscious, fungi is conscious etc.
We don't even have a concrete definition for what conscious means but we use that classification as a means to make rules about what we can and can't do to certain entities. Can we destroy an ecosystem that has been found to be full of conscious mycelium? Is that worse than if we determined it was not conscious after all? Without a concrete definition of what consciousness is, we assign consciousness to things based on feeling and on what we want to signal to other humans about these entities.
We don't even have a concrete definition for what conscious means but we use that classification as a means to make rules about what we can and can't do to certain entities. Can we destroy an ecosystem that has been found to be full of conscious mycelium? Is that worse than if we determined it was not conscious after all? Without a concrete definition of what consciousness is, we assign consciousness to things based on feeling and on what we want to signal to other humans about these entities.
I think that means we didn't have a good definition or understanding to begin with
Yep, that's what I'm saying. But what's more important is why are we trying to find the meaning of it in the first place?
I guess the idea is that if 2 beings are conscious there may exist some mechanism to transfer information between them?
Understanding what is conscious is and how it comes about seems interesting. I think currently it falls more into the philosophical sphere of science rather then biological or physics. Maybe once more is understood about human consciousness we will be able to categorize and add other life forms and consciousness types to this list.
Understanding what is conscious is and how it comes about seems interesting. I think currently it falls more into the philosophical sphere of science rather then biological or physics. Maybe once more is understood about human consciousness we will be able to categorize and add other life forms and consciousness types to this list.
Yeah I guess you can even say at what point is "communication" actual communication vs a response to stimulus? We can communicate with humans through speech. We can partially communicate to animals like dogs through speech. Is exerting a force on an insect an act of communication? How about excreting some chemical near an amoeba? Then back to mycelium, does stepping on a forest mycelium carpet constitute communication and thus consciousness?
It's all very fascinating but it seems to break down very quickly as the definitions mean nothing.
It's all very fascinating but it seems to break down very quickly as the definitions mean nothing.
If a small mass has this much complexity, interacting small masses should be vastly more complex. And by moving slowly I bet a lot would be time based as well.
I think it's pretty likely a collection 10x the size would have much more than 10x the complexity due to the interactions. In the same way as a quantum computer, the state of each collection of cells is not quantized because it has many analog values at different ratios and interacts in complex ways with the surroundings.
Of course by this logic a collection of phytoplankton is complex because I'm sure they all have chemicals they excrete. But I also kind of honestly think a rock is conscious by any reasonable definition, so I know I'm not the one who should be drawing the line...
I think it's pretty likely a collection 10x the size would have much more than 10x the complexity due to the interactions. In the same way as a quantum computer, the state of each collection of cells is not quantized because it has many analog values at different ratios and interacts in complex ways with the surroundings.
Of course by this logic a collection of phytoplankton is complex because I'm sure they all have chemicals they excrete. But I also kind of honestly think a rock is conscious by any reasonable definition, so I know I'm not the one who should be drawing the line...
[deleted]
I don't disagree, but couldn't consciousness play out at different time scales? If an alien lived for one second but its brain processed information billions of times faster than ours, would they be right to consider us non-conscious?
That's an interesting point! I suppose the definition of 'consciousness' implies a certain timescale in my internally unexamined definition but there's no reason that need be the case!
If I understand your initial argument as implicitly revised here, it's basically "whatever consciousness is, it doesn't happen at the scale of some small number of bits". But some fungi are among the largest organisms on the planet. If this kind of signaling is going on within them, imagine the throughput, even if the individual signaling rates are low.
I wonder if there could be conscious life inside neutron stars, organized through nuclear reactions not chemical and therefore going much faster.
There is a book about this! It's Dragons Egg by R. Forward and it's pretty good!
>>I don't disagree, but couldn't consciousness play out at different time scales?
I think you are correct in this insight. I also think that the perceived [or relative] rhythm of the passage of time would have huge implications here in this case: from the fungal perspective, "our" world would be "seen" at very high speed, which would prevent any form of interaction. It would even prevent reciprocal detection.
This "perceived time rate" difference could happen on an astronomical scale and might contain the explanation of informational paradoxes such as Fermi's.
I think you are correct in this insight. I also think that the perceived [or relative] rhythm of the passage of time would have huge implications here in this case: from the fungal perspective, "our" world would be "seen" at very high speed, which would prevent any form of interaction. It would even prevent reciprocal detection.
This "perceived time rate" difference could happen on an astronomical scale and might contain the explanation of informational paradoxes such as Fermi's.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0uffu5XM-s
Fungi expertly transport material around themselves. This time-lapse shows traffic through a fungal network. DNA-containing nuclei are stained green. Pulses of nuclei – ‘nuclear comets’ – travel in hordes through the mycelium (of Neurospora crassa).
The role of nuclear comets is unclear. The most plausible hypothesis is that the fungus uses comets to supply growing spores with nuclei, although how the fungus is able to shuttle the nuclei so quickly remains a puzzle. Nuclear comets travel faster than material transported by microtubule ‘motors’ (dynamic filaments that behave like a cross between scaffolding and escalators). Comets are followed closely by flocks of energy-producing mitochondria, which might play a role in their rapid transport.
Video was made using laser scanning confocal microscopy of Neurospora crassa. The field of view is approximately 0.6 mm.
Video © Patrick Hickey
Fungi expertly transport material around themselves. This time-lapse shows traffic through a fungal network. DNA-containing nuclei are stained green. Pulses of nuclei – ‘nuclear comets’ – travel in hordes through the mycelium (of Neurospora crassa).
The role of nuclear comets is unclear. The most plausible hypothesis is that the fungus uses comets to supply growing spores with nuclei, although how the fungus is able to shuttle the nuclei so quickly remains a puzzle. Nuclear comets travel faster than material transported by microtubule ‘motors’ (dynamic filaments that behave like a cross between scaffolding and escalators). Comets are followed closely by flocks of energy-producing mitochondria, which might play a role in their rapid transport.
Video was made using laser scanning confocal microscopy of Neurospora crassa. The field of view is approximately 0.6 mm.
Video © Patrick Hickey
That's incredible, thanks for sharing that! I've only ever seen videos of neurons stained like that and they sure don't seem to be doing the same thing, though I think I remember what I saw had something to do with genetically engineering the kinases to clump together so they could actually be seen
mushrooms are certainly not conscious
Considering we don't understand consciousness it might be wiser not to claim limits with certainty.
Considering we don't understand consciousness it might be wiser not to claim limits with certainty.
Agree. A more interesting question would be how to interact with this channel in some meaningful way. Ie can we steer some fungus activity in some way with introducing some stimulus. Not exactly to “test for conscious” but just “can we get repeatable output for a controlled input.”
I do though think it should be allowable to ponder out loud things like “could this be conscious?” If only because it’s a much more fruitful and less self serving premise than how science has conducted itself to this point. But also because humans have something of a vested interest in not having to admit that wide industrial processes harm sentient life, for instance.
I do though think it should be allowable to ponder out loud things like “could this be conscious?” If only because it’s a much more fruitful and less self serving premise than how science has conducted itself to this point. But also because humans have something of a vested interest in not having to admit that wide industrial processes harm sentient life, for instance.
I liked Max Tegmark's remark on how "consciousness is the way information feels when it's being processed". I think that it's safe to pretty roughly define it in those terms if we're going to come to a better understanding of what it might ultimately entail given more understandings like the experiments in this research here indicate for deserving more attention.
At that bitrate we'd have to include a light switch in our consciousness search. Which I am not willing to do.
Bitrate is a total red herring here. What matters is what computation is performed, not the rate at which it is performed. That's like saying a 4-bit microcontroller isn't a computer because it can't run Doom.
I'd think it is something like a ratio of bitrate to entropy. How quickly is information being processed relative to how quickly it is being lost?
[deleted]
> A fruit fly has more processing power than a fungus, by orders of magnitude.
My laptop has several orders of processing power more than my brain, whose neurons fire around ~200 milliseconds. Can you please explain to me the relationship between processing power and consciousness?
My laptop has several orders of processing power more than my brain, whose neurons fire around ~200 milliseconds. Can you please explain to me the relationship between processing power and consciousness?
> My laptop has several orders of processing power more than my brain, whose neurons fire around ~200 milliseconds.
The classic counter-point to the speed difference here is that biological brains are massively parallel - no synchronized system clock, every logical element acting async and in parallel - so that the number of operations per second per element may be tiny (say 10s per second) while the throughput of the entire system is massive.
It's similar logic to deeply pipe-lined processor architectures - pipelining may slow down execution of a particular instruction but allow greater global throughput.
Also, the logical operations performed by neurons (I believe neuron behavior is modeled using differential equations) appear significantly more complex than the boolean switching behavior of the logic gates in CPUs. So the amount of computation may be significantly larger than it appears.
The classic counter-point to the speed difference here is that biological brains are massively parallel - no synchronized system clock, every logical element acting async and in parallel - so that the number of operations per second per element may be tiny (say 10s per second) while the throughput of the entire system is massive.
It's similar logic to deeply pipe-lined processor architectures - pipelining may slow down execution of a particular instruction but allow greater global throughput.
Also, the logical operations performed by neurons (I believe neuron behavior is modeled using differential equations) appear significantly more complex than the boolean switching behavior of the logic gates in CPUs. So the amount of computation may be significantly larger than it appears.
I doubt that.
Ignoring confounding algorithmic factors, the very rough consensus for human brain appears to be 10^16 FLOPS. A modern RTX3090 GPU has 10^13 FLOPS. I doubt your laptop has 1000x the compute of a high-end desktop GPU.
Ignoring confounding algorithmic factors, the very rough consensus for human brain appears to be 10^16 FLOPS. A modern RTX3090 GPU has 10^13 FLOPS. I doubt your laptop has 1000x the compute of a high-end desktop GPU.
Let me answer your question with a question - what is the processing power of your brain if you're so sure it's less than your laptop?
Well, that settles it. Let’s pack it up, team.
There is no way to prove the statement "x is conscious". You are just stating your opinion.
How many bits per hour do solitary animals like cougars or hawks convey? I agree that whales sing endless, perhaps even annoying other whales with their wails. But many animals don't seem to even hit one bit per day.
What do you mean? There is an extremely information dense processing network inside each of those animals. I wasn't making a comment on the information density of their interface, but their processing itself
I think the paper measures the communication through the electric field. So it's fair to compare that to the amount of communication from the solitary animals, right? I'm not measuring their overall computation that they apply going through their day. And I also submit it may be hard to know just how much computation the fungus does when it's not communicating.
The analogue here is a neural network, not a bird squawk.
Complaining about bitrate and comparing that to animals that a motive with complex sensory organs is pretty weird. There’s certainly no evolutionary pressure to develop a high speed computational system, but that doesn’t mean a slow speed one couldn’t work.
Your statement “mushrooms are certainly not conscious” cannot be proven.
It also makes the assumption that consciousness is something we understand. This is certainly not the case. As science still doesn’t have a clue as to what it really is.
It also makes the assumption that consciousness is something we understand. This is certainly not the case. As science still doesn’t have a clue as to what it really is.
> The information conveyed over the whole of the network by this mechanism is on the order of bits per hour.
How many hours, though?
How many hours, though?
But if you have enough time and size...
Reminds me of portia from Echopraxia by Peter Watts
Reminds me of portia from Echopraxia by Peter Watts
no offense but I think you should consider 5g of cubensis and report back after a few hours.
Brings to mind this TED talk: Electrical experiments with plants that count and communicate
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvBlSFVmoaw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvBlSFVmoaw
We already know that trees communicate with each other using the underground network of mushrooms. The more we learn about them the more fascinated I am by mushrooms.
Man just wait till you hear about plasmodesma..
Book recommendation: "Entangled Life" by Merlin Sheldrake [0].
The author discusses the possibility of intricately connected subterranean mycelium networks electrically signaling each other acting as a giant nervous system. He stops himself from calling it a giant brain, but admits that the possibility isn't really far fetched given everything else that we know about fungi.
It's a fantastic book. Strong recommend.
[0]. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WJ84V9B/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
The author discusses the possibility of intricately connected subterranean mycelium networks electrically signaling each other acting as a giant nervous system. He stops himself from calling it a giant brain, but admits that the possibility isn't really far fetched given everything else that we know about fungi.
It's a fantastic book. Strong recommend.
[0]. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WJ84V9B/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?...
Thanks! I'm listening to it on Audible now.
It's absolutely an interesting paper, but just to note: Their finding is not that the spike activity is a language. They just propose it might be a language and then derive a number of statistics by treating it like a language for the sake of the argument.
... at least that was my understanding from the abstract and introduction.
... at least that was my understanding from the abstract and introduction.
Seems so.
Tangentially, I think it's unfortunate that "hope" can't help form the frame here. I mean, it's an elephant in the room, but I think it's friendly.
Tangentially, I think it's unfortunate that "hope" can't help form the frame here. I mean, it's an elephant in the room, but I think it's friendly.
People do not realize just how important Fungi are - there was a point at which Trees were the new hotness and Fungi had not evolved yet - prehistoric trees basically took over the entire planet and there was nothing to break down all of the leftover dead wood on the ground. We are talking layers and layers of dead trees everywhere.
Then Fungi evolved and started breaking all that down and eventually a long time later we get animals.
Then Fungi evolved and started breaking all that down and eventually a long time later we get animals.
Fungi were on land before trees (they broke down rocks to make soil, and were the OG roots). It took them a while to learn to digest.. I think lignin was it?
Half remembered from first chapter of Entangled Life.
Half remembered from first chapter of Entangled Life.
You are probably right - they just could not digest whatever they needed to do for the trees. Makes sense
IIRC the layers of dead trees also caused pervasive fires. One because of the fuel from the trees, but also because oxygen levels were much higher due to large amount of carbon trapped in the trees.
Apparently much of worlds coal was also from this period.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-...
Apparently much of worlds coal was also from this period.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/why-was-most-of-the-...
I wonder how those trees communicated then. I am reading "the hidden life of trees" at the moment, which talks quite a bit about how trees communicate using fungi. The fungi benefit from this by receiving certain nutrients.
Its an interesting symbiotic relationship for sure. When I was backpacking in Alaska I was basically walking non stop on lichen (which sort of looks like large tuft balls of colorful and very tiny coral reefs but super soft and springy). All of the animals there eat tons of this stuff. Its basically a hybrid between a plant and a fungi (not just a symbiotic relationship). Sort of like fungi-moss.
I don't have anywhere near the scientific background to even consider whether this is a report on "fungi are intelligent" or "just some random electrical signals". If the former, it's absolutely hilarious, because Terrance McKenna was possibly right after all: https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/stoned-ape-...
Of course, if this were "true" and "proven", I would imagine it would be all over front-page news for every major publication.
Of course, if this were "true" and "proven", I would imagine it would be all over front-page news for every major publication.
How would "intelligent" fungi have any bearing on the stoned ape theory? The former seems neither necessary nor sufficient for the latter.
You are absolutely right - the underlying premise is that "fungi is intelligent, and it passes some of that intelligence to the apes, when consumed". This makes no sense. Just came to mind since McKenna also rants about fungi networks being the largest intelligent being on the planet, etc.
McKenna said some weird stuff, but the stoned ape theory is probably his most believable idea.
Intelligence and creativity didn’t arise because protohumans became fungal hybrids, but rather the psychedelic mushrooms not only provided sustainance, but also provided behavioral changes like better visual acuity (I believe this claim is proven), sexual arrousal. This mean mushroom eaters were more likely to reproduce. As a sideffect, the psyliopsybin either promoted neural placticity, or novel wirings.
Protohumans that didn’t eat mushrooms died out, and the most successful eaters were the most clever protohumans. (Perhaps behavior became the dominate sexual selection criteria, rather than say meer physical features.)
He says a lot of other weird stuff like, mushrooms are from space, are conscious, or maybe are communication devices, or maybe prerecorded messages from alien “self transforming machine elves”, or maybe they are the elves?
Oh well. All will become clear when universe hits maximum novelty in 2012.
Intelligence and creativity didn’t arise because protohumans became fungal hybrids, but rather the psychedelic mushrooms not only provided sustainance, but also provided behavioral changes like better visual acuity (I believe this claim is proven), sexual arrousal. This mean mushroom eaters were more likely to reproduce. As a sideffect, the psyliopsybin either promoted neural placticity, or novel wirings.
Protohumans that didn’t eat mushrooms died out, and the most successful eaters were the most clever protohumans. (Perhaps behavior became the dominate sexual selection criteria, rather than say meer physical features.)
He says a lot of other weird stuff like, mushrooms are from space, are conscious, or maybe are communication devices, or maybe prerecorded messages from alien “self transforming machine elves”, or maybe they are the elves?
Oh well. All will become clear when universe hits maximum novelty in 2012.
I wouldn't state "makes no sense" about something like that. For example, in sci-fi terms, psychedelic molecules could be akin to a 'protomolecule' that attaches to self-replicating entities and attempts to induce ??consciousness??
We don't know any of this for sure.
We don't know any of this for sure.
And when we translate these fungal sentences...
"Juffo-Wup is the hot light in the darkness. All else is unfulfilled Void."
"Juffo-Wup is the hot light in the darkness. All else is unfulfilled Void."
It would be interesting to see an experiment like this run on a large fungal colony in the wild like one of those huge organisms that you find in old-growth forests. You may be able to fine-tune your understanding of their "language" syntax and format if you could deploy a grid of sensors to track a message as it spreads through the organism to see how efficiently it is delivered to distant parts of the colony.
It would also give an opportunity to see whether fungi play the telephone game and how that affects those at the other end of the "conversation".
Thanks for this article. For me it confirms the notion that all things alive need a method of communication that allows them to use the resources in their environments to greatest effect. Whether that involves chemical signaling, electrical signaling, disapproving glances, the spoken word, etc. is irrelevant. It appears that no matter how deeply you dig, there is a sense of community in most living things and most things find ways to work together with their environments to guarantee survival. Humans could probably learn a few things from their steak toppings about how best to utilize the bullshit many of us find ourselves wallowing in.
It would also give an opportunity to see whether fungi play the telephone game and how that affects those at the other end of the "conversation".
Thanks for this article. For me it confirms the notion that all things alive need a method of communication that allows them to use the resources in their environments to greatest effect. Whether that involves chemical signaling, electrical signaling, disapproving glances, the spoken word, etc. is irrelevant. It appears that no matter how deeply you dig, there is a sense of community in most living things and most things find ways to work together with their environments to guarantee survival. Humans could probably learn a few things from their steak toppings about how best to utilize the bullshit many of us find ourselves wallowing in.
[deleted]
Adamatzky is a GOAT in biocomputing. Hes the sort of researcher who really makes me question why we spend so much money on developing quantum computers and other new ways of modeling biosystems when using other biosystems as analogs seems far cheaper and more fruitful.
The goal of people doing basic research in math and science is not producing more economic value. They really do it just for fun. If what they do happen to be useful for others outside their club, great, but that's never the goal. They might twist words a little to get grants. Historically, their work has been useful. ;)
I wouldn’t say they do it for fun, but to understand. A lot of science isn’t fun, but understanding is it’s own reward that lasts a lot longer than fun.
This is wild.
"We also construct algorithmic and Liz-Zempel complexity hierarchies of fungal sentences and show that species S. commune generate the most complex sentences."
Is this the first time a non-animal species has exhibited such behavior under verifiable conditions?
"We also construct algorithmic and Liz-Zempel complexity hierarchies of fungal sentences and show that species S. commune generate the most complex sentences."
Is this the first time a non-animal species has exhibited such behavior under verifiable conditions?
They don't appear to literally be claiming that this is a language, a less click-baity title would be 'Calcium wave communication in networks of fungi mycelium'. This is not a newly discovered phenomenon - we've known that fungi use calcium derived electrical potentials to signal the mass to do things for a long time. There's no evidence this is any more complex than hormonal communication in plants, just a different media.
The wind is talking to us. Chicago confirmed as having the most talkative wind.
They are consuming too much of their subject matter.
They are consuming too much of their subject matter.
I always wondered if certain fungi reached earth via an asteroid that hit earth and was from a fertile exoplanet, and somehow reached here. I like the idea of panspermia[0]. I always imagined psilocybin-containing mushrooms as somewhat alien and almost designed to alter consciousness, as if from another planet. McKenna's 'stoned ape' theory, if true, would explain much of the 'missing link' problem.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia
Psilocybin-producing mushrooms are widely dispersed across the clade of all other true mushrooms and their genomes clearly show there is no great mystery about their evolutionary history or relationships to other fungi. Modern phylogenetics completely discredits panspermia as an origin for particular species or groups of fungi: they all share a single common ancestor and they are all connected to our single Tree of Life as with every other known lifeform on Earth.
The missing link is already explained by wild discontinuities in evolution, which are pretty much a given on the evolutionary chain of any species on earth given for how long life that evolves has been present on the planet. There's records of tribes with click based languages that can arrange very effective and powerful hunting squads using spears an overpower even herds or packs of the most dangerous animals in their regions. Yeah they look wildly different than apes, but imagine what they were doing to the other kinda differently looking apes that didn't understand their clicks but understood "pointy stick good", and that happened for thousands of years.
Whole indigenous languages went exting in the late 20th century in places like Bolivia or Australia and even during the 21st century native languages are going extinct in California. In thousands and thousands of years someone trying to re-walk Darwins path may wonder were is the missing link in evolution between something like Aztec and European remains found in the West Coast, when there's none. Species can evolve in isolation and then obliterate each other leaving a discontinuity or clique within the genus, it happens all the time, and it's puzzling but natural.
Whole indigenous languages went exting in the late 20th century in places like Bolivia or Australia and even during the 21st century native languages are going extinct in California. In thousands and thousands of years someone trying to re-walk Darwins path may wonder were is the missing link in evolution between something like Aztec and European remains found in the West Coast, when there's none. Species can evolve in isolation and then obliterate each other leaving a discontinuity or clique within the genus, it happens all the time, and it's puzzling but natural.
Aztecs and European-Americans only separated about 40k years ago, which is more recently than when East Asians and Europeans separated. Would be confusing for future civilizations to figure that one out
We should come with the device converting fungi signals into digital signals and connect vast fungi mycelium networks to the internet. To connect our forests to the internet.
Those who doubt that primitive organisms could be conscious should take a serious look into 'slime molds': https://www.quantamagazine.org/slime-molds-remember-but-do-t...
Really impressive considering the setup. Would love to see them grow fungi around a lattice to have input and output in a controlled manner.
Maybe my anecdotal experience of taking mushrooms and feeling like I can communicate with plants is not completely far fetched nonsense.
Here to recommend Sue Burke's Semiosis/Interference sci-fi duology about first contact with a intelligent plant life.
Wow this is really cool. I wonder if this can be harnessed to charge a very small battery, which in turn can power a small LED. Might be a unique variation on the potato powered light bulb science fair project. I have quite a few blocks of mycelium sitting around...
It's a fun unrelated fact that neurons come from the germ (embrionic) layer of cells which correspond to external cells, like the skin.
i.e. neurons are made from ectoderm germ cells (not endoderm --inside, nor mesoderm -- middle, but outer layer)
i.e. neurons are made from ectoderm germ cells (not endoderm --inside, nor mesoderm -- middle, but outer layer)
There is Fungi[1] language, by the way. It has nothing to do with real fungi though.
[1] https://github.com/Adapton/fungi-lang.rust
[1] https://github.com/Adapton/fungi-lang.rust
If we ever get viable neural interface available, I definitely want to wire myself to my garden. The first thing I did on bare plot was to put in rotten wood and cartons for fungi to grow.
Fungi are very good bio chemists so we could ask them a lot of questions.
I was keen to setup a fungi computer some time back that created reactions to viruses and bacteria.
Is there emergence? Do they need time, or clocks? Is it full duplex; is the channel blocked while just one transmits?
I for one welcome our new fungus overlords.
Probably a fungi net can be trained similar to NN and talked to like GPT-n.
I haven't read the entire paper but this citations stands out: > Fungi also exhibit trains of action-potential-like spikes, detectable by intracellular and extracellular recordings
Action potentials are the fundamental signaling mechanism used by neurons [1]. Think of them as an electrical signal that a cell actively propagates. Lots of cells use electrical potentials for signaling; however, most of them spread gradually or passively. Action potentials on the other hand the cell actively expends energy to send information quickly.
Really cool to see convergent biology (my personal guess) here. I can only imagine what new things we're going to learn about fungi and mycelium in the next few decades. In all seriousness mushrooms COULD be conscious.
1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential