Stellar Formation and Cellular Consciousness

magnetic fields. Beyond this, we believe that the star in its collapse proceeds according to progressive contractions or collapses that are at the origin of the planetary gaps present in the proto-disk in correspondence of which the basic conditions are created for the progressive formation of planets. Each collapse corresponds to a bifurcation in stellar evolution, whereby an evolutionary principle acts in opposite ways on the elements of the system. In this case, the elements of the system that lead to the formation of the star can certainly be divided into gases and dust of various dimensions. Thus, if one part of the protostellar system manages to collapse progressively and, ultimately, to trigger the transmutation of hydrogen into helium in the core and make the star enter the Main Sequence, the other part left behind, not mature for this evolution, remains as a protoplanetary disk and will constitute the seed of what will be the development of a planet with its evolution. After the separation and expulsion of the elements that hindered its formation, the star will enter the Main Sequence and station there, providing the Planetary System it hosts with the opportunity for its evolution. Once the time offered by the Star in the Main Sequence is finished, it proceeds in its evolutionary path by reabsorbing the elements that it had previously expelled to operate its transmutation by reabsorbing and transmuting them. The separation of elements most refractory to a certain evolutionary principle and their subsequent reabsorption in a second phase is a typical element of organic evolution. Part of the system must separate and achieve the objective set by the organic system to then extend it to others only in a second time. Thus the star separates from refractory elements, to then reabsorb them subsequently in a second phase of its evolution, transforming them.

Superorganisms: Are Cells Conscious?

(...continues from the previous volume...) The problem of the consciousness of a superorganism such as the social organism of a people could be automatically brings another opposite to it: are we a superorganism? In other words, are cells conscious? Before evaluating whether and what type of consciousness a people might have, we must therefore necessarily focus on whether and what type of consciousness a cell might have. One of the greatest evolutionary biologists at Princeton, recently deceased, John Tyler Bonner notes with surprise in one of his articles, with the emblematic title "Brainless behavior", the problem: "It is puzzling that primitive organisms that lack any kind of nervous system show sophisticated behaviors that we assume require a nervous system with some sort of centralized brain or ganglion. Many examples known in the past, which refute this assumption, demonstrate that organisms without nerves have behaviors. Perhaps the pioneer in revealing such behaviors was Jennings, who showed as early as 1905 that protozoa like Paramecium could orient to various environmental cues and even have a primitive type of learning and memory." This statement by Bonner introduces the experimental observations on the slime mold Physarum that have demonstrated its ability to discriminate between a large variety of food sources and to explore only those that provide the optimal diet for growth. Physarum can also navigate a maze to connect the shortest distance between food and its current position; some argue that such properties indicate primitive intelligence. Using minimum path length and optimal tube thickness, Physarum minimizes energy expenditure for maximum energy gain. When subjected to periodic interval shocks, Physarum remembers the frequency and is able to predict the appearance of the next shock, suggesting the origin of intelligence. When asked to behave more rapidly, the slime mold makes more errors.