In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[fromderinside]

I am not in a position to watch videos.

If the explanation in the video exists nowhere else, it's probably valueless anyway. In my experience the information density of YouTube videos is very low indeed. Can you link to a written source for this information, whatever it is?

From your summary I am not confident that the idea has any merit; humans can't detect single atoms by smell, and they certainly can't detect how they are vibrating.

It's been known for quite some time now. Seth Lloyd from MIT talks about the findings on PI.

First we smell molecules. Second if one is making a point about sensitivity it would be that the difference between molecules may be one atom and we might detect a single molecule. That's unlikely since it is nearly impossible to restrict an odorant to single molecules on the olfactory mucosa. This goes in the same bag as hearing is sensitive to movement of a single angstrom on the basilar membrane, seeing is sensitive to as few as four photons on the retina, and other such nonsense which has been in the 'well known' bag since the '40s.

 

[ryan]

It's been known for quite some time now. Seth Lloyd from MIT talks about the findings on PI.

First we smell molecules. Second if one is making a point about sensitivity it would be that the difference between molecules may be one atom and we might detect a single molecule. That's unlikely since it is nearly impossible to restrict an odorant to single molecules on the olfactory mucosa. This goes in the same bag as hearing is sensitive to movement of a single angstrom on the basilar membrane, seeing is sensitive to as few as four photons on the retina, and other such nonsense which has been in the 'well known' bag since the '40s.

I don't know if you watched it, but he says that if you switch the carbon atoms with silicon atoms in a particular molecule, then the smell totally changes. The chemical function of the whole molecule stays exactly the same, so previous theories would suggest that the smell would be exactly the same. However, the smell is actually completely different. The best way that they can explain this is with different vibrations of the electrons that are in the silicon rather than the carbon.

And it is not a single quantum effect of one electron that we sense, it is many of the same quantum effects in the odor.

Seth Lloyd explains it very well from 43:00 to 48:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXSpXyZVuY .

 

[Kharakov]

The source of sugar,  photosynthesis#efficiency, uses quantum computation (well.. technically some photosynthesis processes  quantum walk energy from point a to point b).

One of the most fundamental processes of life, that almost all life on the planet depends upon for sustenance, uses quantum mechanical phenomena regularly because life evolved to take advantage of the quantum phenomena. Doesn't mean every photosynthesizing agent had this ability- but the ones that did were more efficient, and had more offspring. QM phenomena are part of life.

Quantum mechanical phenomena are part of life, and it's possible that our neural structures have evolved to efficiently harness certain quantum phenomena. Maybe it's some low grade signal between neurotransmitters, maybe something else. The point is, if some form of beneficial quantum phenomena happened to be stumbled across by nature, it might be in your brain....

Sure, it might. If we start from a position of knowing nothing about how neurons work.

But given that the biophysics and biochemistry of neurons is well understood, we can rule it out - single molecules are simply not significant enough to matter, and the cascades of neurotransmitters crossing synapses, and the huge flows of ions across the cell membrane as a signal propagates along an axon are all far too large scale for quantum effects to be important - a handful of Sodium ions that don't take part in the cascade due to some quantum effect won't make the slightest difference.

So yes, quantum effects might matter in the brain. But when we check, we find that they don't.

You're talking about them, aren't you? Classical quantum humor manifests quantum effects classically, albeit somewhat dryly, because I haven't had a good stiff drink in a while. Truthfully, even if the brain/consciousness had evolved the ability to use quantum phenomena (manifested by understanding of mathematical concepts)... joking again.


The real thing to question is whether or not there is some form of quantum phenomena that is useful to a brain. In other words, maybe certain brain cells have evolved to take advantage of quantum phenomena in the decision making process. We already know that stimulating individual brain cells can lead to information cascades- why can't a brain cell prepare a state in which quantum phenomena are used to make a decision?

 

[bilby]

I am not in a position to watch videos.

If the explanation in the video exists nowhere else, it's probably valueless anyway. In my experience the information density of YouTube videos is very low indeed. Can you link to a written source for this information, whatever it is?

From your summary I am not confident that the idea has any merit; humans can't detect single atoms by smell, and they certainly can't detect how they are vibrating.

It's been known for quite some time now. Seth Lloyd from MIT talks about the findings on PI.

There is something very special about being given a link to YouTube as evidence, as an alternative to the evidence originally provided, which I explained that I couldn't see because I can't watch YouTube videos...

 

[bilby]

First we smell molecules. Second if one is making a point about sensitivity it would be that the difference between molecules may be one atom and we might detect a single molecule. That's unlikely since it is nearly impossible to restrict an odorant to single molecules on the olfactory mucosa. This goes in the same bag as hearing is sensitive to movement of a single angstrom on the basilar membrane, seeing is sensitive to as few as four photons on the retina, and other such nonsense which has been in the 'well known' bag since the '40s.

I don't know if you watched it, but he says that if you switch the carbon atoms with silicon atoms in a particular molecule, then the smell totally changes. The chemical function of the whole molecule stays exactly the same, so previous theories would suggest that the smell would be exactly the same. However, the smell is actually completely different. The best way that they can explain this is with different vibrations of the electrons that are in the silicon rather than the carbon.

And it is not a single quantum effect of one electron that we sense, it is many of the same quantum effects in the odor.

Seth Lloyd explains it very well from 43:00 to 48:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXSpXyZVuY .

I still can't watch videos. But that changing one atom in each molecule changes the properties of the compound is bleeding obvious; and is also completely unrelated to the idea that humans can detect single molecules, much less single atoms.

Change Oxygen for Sulphur, and H₂O becomes H₂S - it goes from a refreshing drink to a stinking, toxic gas. That's one meaning for 'change one atom'. However if you take a glass of water and change one atom, so that it is a glass of water with one molecule of H₂S in it, even a well equiped analytical laboratory couldn't detect the one atom difference. That's a totally different meaning for 'change one atom'; and equivocation rarely makes for a good argument.

Quantum effects don't apply when you have 'many'. That's the whole point - aggregating 'many' quantum effects gives rise to classical physics. (Or, to be more precise, classical physics is a description of what is observed whenever large numbers of quantum events are aggregated).

At the scale of the neuron, there are far too many particles involved in the function of the cell for quantum effects to have any chance of being significant.

This whole 'quantum' idea is a red herring. It does not and cannot have any influence on how a neuron responds to stimulus in a working brain; any more than Amtrak can use quantum tunnelling to get a train through the Rocky Mountains without all that expensive digging. The scale is all wrong.

 

[ryan]

It's been known for quite some time now. Seth Lloyd from MIT talks about the findings on PI.

There is something very special about being given a link to YouTube as evidence, as an alternative to the evidence originally provided, which I explained that I couldn't see because I can't watch YouTube videos...

Still?! Where the hell are you? Just type in something like "quantum smell". Here's a BBC article, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21150046 .

 

[ryan]

I don't know if you watched it, but he says that if you switch the carbon atoms with silicon atoms in a particular molecule, then the smell totally changes. The chemical function of the whole molecule stays exactly the same, so previous theories would suggest that the smell would be exactly the same. However, the smell is actually completely different. The best way that they can explain this is with different vibrations of the electrons that are in the silicon rather than the carbon.

And it is not a single quantum effect of one electron that we sense, it is many of the same quantum effects in the odor.

Seth Lloyd explains it very well from 43:00 to 48:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXSpXyZVuY .

I still can't watch videos. But that changing one atom in each molecule changes the properties of the compound is bleeding obvious; and is also completely unrelated to the idea that humans can detect single molecules, much less single atoms.

Change Oxygen for Sulphur, and H₂O becomes H₂S - it goes from a refreshing drink to a stinking, toxic gas. That's one meaning for 'change one atom'. However if you take a glass of water and change one atom, so that it is a glass of water with one molecule of H₂S in it, even a well equiped analytical laboratory couldn't detect the one atom difference. That's a totally different meaning for 'change one atom'; and equivocation rarely makes for a good argument.

Pay close attention to the wording, and then use Occam's razor to help you choose the less ridiculous option from any ambiguity. This is an issue that plagues this forum. For example, I was playing baseball. I swung all the way around and hit myself with the bat. You shouldn't jump to the conclusion that I hit myself with a pet bat.

Now, when someone says that they can smell a molecule. They usually mean that they smell many of the same kind of molecule. "I can smell sulfur" should be obvious that the person is saying that they can smell many sulfur molecules and not just one.

So please make the proper connection, or ask if there is any possible ambiguity.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Pay close attention to the wording, and then use Occam's razor to help you choose the less ridiculous option from any ambiguity.

I didn't think Okham gave a rat's about ridiculous...
But you're saying that people should be accustomed to ignoring what you actually, explicitly say, and rewrite your post to what they think you should have stated and respond to the post they intuit telepathically (or magically) that you actually meant?

Isn't that, technically, a strawman?

 

[ryan]

Pay close attention to the wording, and then use Occam's razor to help you choose the less ridiculous option from any ambiguity.

I didn't think Okham gave a rat's about ridiculous...
But you're saying that people should be accustomed to ignoring what you actually, explicitly say, and rewrite your post to what they think you should have stated and respond to the post they intuit telepathically (or magically) that you actually meant?

Isn't that, technically, a strawman?

If there is any obvious ambiguity, people generally see the more ridiculous possibility. You don't do this, and some others don't either. But many do.

Sometimes I am shocked at how well some people here can know exactly what I am saying, while others totally convolute things. I usually bring this up about once a year.

Sometimes I don't even notice when someone makes these unintentional derailments, and we end up arguing for hours about something I did not even say.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there is any obvious ambiguity, people generally see the more ridiculous possibility.

I don't see a whole lot of ambiguity in smelling 'an atom.' By which you meant, apparently, a different atom used to form many different molecules.
What would have caused a reader to change your use of 'an atom' to 'a bunch of molecules that are a distance of one element away from a bunch of different molecules?'

Doesn't seem like ambiguity at all. Seems like words have meaning and your statement was drastically different than what you ended up claiming to be your meaning....

 

[bilby]

There is something very special about being given a link to YouTube as evidence, as an alternative to the evidence originally provided, which I explained that I couldn't see because I can't watch YouTube videos...

Still?! Where the hell are you? Just type in something like "quantum smell". Here's a BBC article, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21150046 .

Thank you.

The article confirms that this is "A controversial theory" that "hints at quantum effects occurring in biological systems" and "remains contested and divisive" (my bold).

In other words it is a journalistic beat up of a bullshit idea.

A quick look at the article in PLOS ONE that is the source for the BBC article (why didn't you link me directly to that, rather than to a second-hand account written by a non-scientist?), shows that the actual study says "...we do not know whether olfactory receptors detect the shape of odorant molecules by a classical lock-and-key mechanism, their vibrations, by a quantum mechanism , or a combination...", and that "These results are consistent with a vibrational component in human olfaction.".

So your evidence is a journalist's misunderstanding of a paper that suggests odours are distinguishable by two of the three hypothesised mechanisms, with "a quantum mechanism" being the one that is NOT shown to occur.

And it took me two minutes to find this out from a link to text, saving me from wading through 56 minutes of video - which I would be strongly disinclined to do even if I was in a place where watching a video would be acceptable.

 

[bilby]

I still can't watch videos. But that changing one atom in each molecule changes the properties of the compound is bleeding obvious; and is also completely unrelated to the idea that humans can detect single molecules, much less single atoms.

Change Oxygen for Sulphur, and H₂O becomes H₂S - it goes from a refreshing drink to a stinking, toxic gas. That's one meaning for 'change one atom'. However if you take a glass of water and change one atom, so that it is a glass of water with one molecule of H₂S in it, even a well equiped analytical laboratory couldn't detect the one atom difference. That's a totally different meaning for 'change one atom'; and equivocation rarely makes for a good argument.

Pay close attention to the wording, and then use Occam's razor to help you choose the less ridiculous option from any ambiguity.

Only you know whether what you intend to say is 'the less ridiculous option'. If I have to make a judgement about what you intend, then you have failed to communicate; It is up to YOU to say what you mean unambiguously. If you leave doubt, then it is not the fault of your audience if they guess incorrectly what your intended meaning might be; Frankly no interpretation of what you are saying here fails to sound ridiculous to me - you are trying to relate two things that are simply not related - quantum effects and neuron activity. This is like trying to describe how to hit a home run to a rookie in terms of the wave function of each quark in his bat; it is ridiculous from the get-go.

This is an issue that plagues this forum. For example, I was playing baseball. I swung all the way around and hit myself with the bat. You shouldn't jump to the conclusion that I hit myself with a pet bat.

Now, when someone says that they can smell a molecule. They usually mean that they smell many of the same kind of molecule. "I can smell sulfur" should be obvious that the person is saying that they can smell many sulfur molecules and not just one.

So please make the proper connection, or ask if there is any possible ambiguity.

Quantum effects are rarely significant at the level of many molecules - where 'many' is defined as 'enough for a human to detect by sense of smell'. They are, however, highly significant at the level of single molecules. So in the context of a discussion of quantum effects, the use of the word 'one' and the singular noun 'atom' can reasonably be construed to mean 'one atom', and not 'one atom in each of many molecules'.

This is particularly true given that the latter interpretation doesn't support your claim at all; you seem to imagine that quantum effects can be cumulative - that if they occur for an atom, they must be greater for many similar atoms. This is exactly backwards. Quantum effects CANCEL OUT over large numbers of particles, which is why macroscopic objects (such as neurons) can be described accurately without reference to quantum effects.

If you want to know how an individual valence electron that is part of an acetylcholine molecule in a specific synapse in a particular brain is moving, then quantum effects are hugely important to get the right answer.

If you just want to know if the right level of excitement has occurred for the neuron to 'fire', then you need not think about quantum effects; any more than you need to consider the quantum effects in the interactions between bat molecules and ball molecules to determine whether or not the ball was struck hard enough to clear the fence.

 

[Kharakov]

This is particularly true given that the latter interpretation doesn't support your claim at all; you seem to imagine that quantum effects can be cumulative - that if they occur for an atom, they must be greater for many similar atoms. This is exactly backwards. Quantum effects CANCEL OUT over large numbers of particles, which is why macroscopic objects (such as neurons) can be described accurately without reference to quantum effects.

Look up NMR. Quantum effects ADD UP over large numbers of nuclei in certain configurations. In other words, to measure the effects, you need a decent sample size.

Protons (hydrogen nuclei) in the Earth's magnetic field are constantly resonating, although they are somewhat shielded by electrons, depending on the molecular configuration.

It's possible that organisms haven't evolved a way to take advantage of this naturally existing wireless information transmission that the majority of hydrogen atom's share.

I just kind of doubt that life hasn't stumbled across more ways of taking advantage of quantum effects than aiding photosynthesis. Really- a quantum walk algorithm that increases the efficiency of photosynthesis by picking the best path out of a superposition of states, but a brain doesn't have any method of creating a superposition of states and collapsing to one?

One of the first life processes (photosynthesis) uses quantum phenomena in certain instances.

My grandpappy weren't no plant! I come from apes! My ancestors didn't use none of that quantum mumbo jumbo...

 

[bilby]

This is particularly true given that the latter interpretation doesn't support your claim at all; you seem to imagine that quantum effects can be cumulative - that if they occur for an atom, they must be greater for many similar atoms. This is exactly backwards. Quantum effects CANCEL OUT over large numbers of particles, which is why macroscopic objects (such as neurons) can be described accurately without reference to quantum effects.

Look up NMR. Quantum effects ADD UP over large numbers of nuclei in certain configurations. In other words, to measure the effects, you need a decent sample size.

Protons (hydrogen nuclei) in the Earth's magnetic field are constantly resonating, although they are somewhat shielded by electrons, depending on the molecular configuration.

It's possible that organisms haven't evolved a way to take advantage of this naturally existing wireless information transmission that the majority of hydrogen atom's share.

I just kind of doubt that life hasn't stumbled across more ways of taking advantage of quantum effects than aiding photosynthesis. Really- a quantum walk algorithm that increases the efficiency of photosynthesis by picking the best path out of a superposition of states, but a brain doesn't have any method of creating a superposition of states and collapsing to one?

One of the first life processes (photosynthesis) uses quantum phenomena in certain instances.

My grandpappy weren't no plant! I come from apes! My ancestors didn't use none of that quantum mumbo jumbo...

So what? The existence of a phenomenon that occurs at magnetic flux densities of about five orders of magnitude greater than those found in most locations on the Earth's surface is not relevant to the routine behaviour living brains. I am not saying that quantum effects don't exist - obviously they do - but that they are not of any significance at all to the topic of free will.

There is no reason to believe that quantum effects have any influence at all over neuron activity in living brains. The idea that they might is simply another of the myriad examples of people with a bad idea trying to prop it up with the word 'quantum', in the hope of sounding clever.

Even if quantum effects did have any influence - and they don't - that still wouldn't provide a mechanism for free will.

Human decisions are fairly predictable, but not completely so. This can be explained by the same macroscopic principles that underlie the unpredictability of weather systems; it is not necessary to rely on quantum effects to produce the observed level of unpredictability in human actions, and there is no reason at all to think that such effects are involved.

And unpredictability is not an indication of free will anyway. Hurricanes are unpredictable, but Katrina didn't decide to wipe out New Orleans as a matter of will, free or otherwise.

The whole line of debate is valueless; IF quantum effects influenced neural activity (which they don't) and if that was necessary to produce the observed level of unpredictability of human behaviour (which it isn't) and if unpredictability was evidence of will (which it's not) then that STILL wouldn't establish that 'free will' exists, much less that it relies on quantum effects to do so.

Free will is an illusion. It is an illusion we are all prone to - we observe what our brains do, and ascribe its activity to free will, and we also observe what other people do, and even what inanimate objects do, and ascribe will to those too. There are people who firmly believe that Katrina did freely choose to clobber NOLA. It is ingrained in our language and in our way of thinking; Where I come from, it is common to hear sentences such as "That screwdriver doesn't want to be used like that, you will break it". Will and desire are popular things to attribute to both animate and inanimate objects; When applied to ourselves, they are part of a post-hoc rationalisation of what the brain just did.

The chain of events feels like a) decide; b) act. But it is more like a) act; b) rationalise the action as something that was decided.

Decision making is what brains do. The 'self' is the brain observing what it just did. This hypothesis is supported by fMRI, it is supported by the observation that 'self awareness' is more apparent in species with larger and more complex brains, and it is supported by the various observed modes of failure in humans who suffer brain injuries, birth defects, or degeneration. Dualism, the 'eternal soul' and 'free will' are all unsupported hypotheses, and should be discarded - whether the mechanism proposed for them is 'quantum' or not.

 

[ryan]

Even if quantum effects did have any influence - and they don't - that still wouldn't provide a mechanism for free will.

There is no hope for you is there? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Remember what I say here: you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DBT]

If free will is not an illusion formed out of the disconnect between conscious experience and it's underlying production mechanisms, a patient who is losing their experience and sense of self should be able to alter the course of their disintegration, yet they cannot.

They cannot because the experience of being a conscious person in control of her/his mind, and able to make conscious decisions, is being produced by neural electrochemical activity.

And as this mechanism and its conscious and unconscious activity unravels because memory no longer integrates consciousness (being damaged) the illusion of conscious control, the ability to make conscious decisions, the ability of your so called 'free will' is exposed for what it is, an illusion.

An illusion that's formed by the disconnect between conscious experience (a form of neural activity), and the mechanism itself, the neural structures and networks of the brain.

The free will would be limited, especially with brain damage.

It's not 'free will' that's being limited, but the architecture of the brain...this being the means of information processing information and forming consciousness, and not 'free will'

You are using the term without regard or consideration to what you apply it to.

They do collectively; we are atoms. Our choices are these atoms.

No they are not. Atoms are not 'choices' - practically everything in the universe is composed of 'atoms' but not everything in the universe is able to process information and make selections from a set of option based on needs and wants.

That takes specialist structures of matter on scales that are orders above atoms. It is the nature of the structure that determines its role in the world. Not atoms and not 'free will'

 

[bilby]

Even if quantum effects did have any influence - and they don't - that still wouldn't provide a mechanism for free will.

There is no hope for you is there? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Remember what I say here: you have no idea what you are talking about.

Given that I think the same of you, this is really not a productive comment.

Perhaps rather than re-emphasising your belief that I am wrong, you could instead present an argument showing that I am wrong (and/or that you are right), and where in my argument as presented I have erred?

I already know from your past posts that you have some very definite beliefs on this subject, and reiteration of this is therefore redundant. You have yet to persuade me that your beliefs are well founded or reasonable; beliefs are ten-a-penny, and I believe that yours are wrong - for the reasons given above (amongst others).

 

[DBT]

First we smell molecules. Second if one is making a point about sensitivity it would be that the difference between molecules may be one atom and we might detect a single molecule. That's unlikely since it is nearly impossible to restrict an odorant to single molecules on the olfactory mucosa. This goes in the same bag as hearing is sensitive to movement of a single angstrom on the basilar membrane, seeing is sensitive to as few as four photons on the retina, and other such nonsense which has been in the 'well known' bag since the '40s.

I don't know if you watched it, but he says that if you switch the carbon atoms with silicon atoms in a particular molecule, then the smell totally changes. The chemical function of the whole molecule stays exactly the same, so previous theories would suggest that the smell would be exactly the same. However, the smell is actually completely different. The best way that they can explain this is with different vibrations of the electrons that are in the silicon rather than the carbon.

And it is not a single quantum effect of one electron that we sense, it is many of the same quantum effects in the odor.

Seth Lloyd explains it very well from 43:00 to 48:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcXSpXyZVuY .

It's been understood for a long time that, for example, some bird species have magnetic field sensitive cells in their brain, etc, but this is beside the point, simply having a collection of sensitive detector cells, be it magnetic fields, or Superposition, or probability wave function, achieves nothing without the related information process, brain, which receives the signals from its specialist structures and correlates the information with other inputs and memory in order to form a coherent representation and respond to it.

This is achieved not through 'free will' but how the organism evolved over time, and its niche within the environment.

Damage to the structures that are associated with magnetic field detector cells, or whatever sensory apparatus, brings that ability to an end.

 

[Kharakov]

Look up NMR. Quantum effects ADD UP over large numbers of nuclei in certain configurations. In other words, to measure the effects, you need a decent sample size.

Protons (hydrogen nuclei) in the Earth's magnetic field are constantly resonating, although they are somewhat shielded by electrons, depending on the molecular configuration.

It's possible that organisms haven't evolved a way to take advantage of this naturally existing wireless information transmission that the majority of hydrogen atom's share.

I just kind of doubt that life hasn't stumbled across more ways of taking advantage of quantum effects than aiding photosynthesis. Really- a quantum walk algorithm that increases the efficiency of photosynthesis by picking the best path out of a superposition of states, but a brain doesn't have any method of creating a superposition of states and collapsing to one?

One of the first life processes (photosynthesis) uses quantum phenomena in certain instances.

My grandpappy weren't no plant! I come from apes! My ancestors didn't use none of that quantum mumbo jumbo...

So what? The existence of a phenomenon that occurs at magnetic flux densities of about five orders of magnitude greater than those found in most locations on the Earth's surface is not relevant to the routine behaviour living brains.

That also occurs in the magnetic field of the Earth. Most hydrogen atoms (protium and tritium) do resonate in the Earth's magnetic field ( Earth's_field_NMR).

I've read that bi-polar patients who undergo MRI usually report improved moods for a period of time afterwords- maybe the increased magnetic field leads to increased resonance between various nuclei in the brain. Whatever though. There are numerous claims about magnetic fields affecting the brains activity, although most of these claims are about the magnetic fields affecting the electromagnetic operation of the brain.

You know why people assume EM? They don't know about NMR, it doesn't come up enough in conversation.

Even if quantum effects did have any influence - and they don't - that still wouldn't provide a mechanism for free will.

Ehh, I'm going to hope you're joking about your belief about quantum effects not having any influence (on the brain). Like I said before- if one of the very first life processes uses quantum walks (takes advantage of superposition of states) to increase efficiency, there is a good chance that something else came along that takes advantage of another quantum phenomena (or even a very similar one).

Quantum phenomena happen at the very small scale- if they are exploitable, something has the ability to do it. Maybe just astrologers, psychics, and cosmologists who sell books...


As to the rest, I'm not arguing for free will. It's not even logically possible, as far as I recall. One has to will to do something, will isn't will without desire for an outcome, so the desire determines the will. Desiring to desire is.. well, I desire some sleep.

 

[DBT]

It's not that the brain consciously, by an act of 'free will' or even just 'will' takes advantage of Superposition or magnetic fields, but that brain has evolved the related physical structures. . The architecture of the cell/sensors/structures and the associated processing networks being the agency of response to environmental conditions.

Evolution.