Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC) model of biological consciousness - Arthur Reber

Science and Technology
1

At comment 8, I added a more complete outline of Arthur Reber’s talk]
Doing my best to provide a vehicle to build a decent discussion around.
Heck decent, iconoclastic! (25-11-18)
The complete version:

====================================

What a wild week it’s been, and today with Michael Levin then winding up with Arthur Reber, and a talk & paper that makes it seem like I cribbed his work. Though, what it really does is let me know I’m on the right track.

In a way I can’t believe I never learned about Authur Reber before today.

Arthur S Reber, William B Miller Jr, Predrag Slijepcevic, František Baluška

Abstract

The Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC) model of biological consciousness is based on the assumption that life and conscious sentience are coterminus. All living organisms, are conscious, self-aware, and have valenced sensory and perceptual experiences. …

The CBC framework

The framework for the Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC) model was first introduced in the 1990s (Reber, 2019). The CBC theory is based on the assumption that life and sentience are coterminous. All, but only, living organisms are conscious, self-aware, and have valenced sensory and perceptual experiences (Baluška and Reber, 2019). Prokaryotes, the simplest unicellular species, display behaviors that are clearly cognitive in nature including associative learning, stable memory formation, route navigation and decision-making. They anticipate upcoming events and readily create functional social collectives, within which they display both cooperation and competition and, fascinatingly, a primitive form of altruism where some cells in a colony put themselves at risk to support the life functions of other cells in distress (Reber et al, 2023). …

2

These ideas are out there. I’m glad he slammed pan-psychism, not my favorite for sure.

Not the most dynamic speaker ever. Could be he doesn’t get too many engagements.

3

Thanks, I can always count on a scintillating response from you.
Keeps the conversation alive.
Excuse my enthusiasm.

4

Certainly not polished like a flash Pinker - but he speaks plenty clearly. And the man is sharp. Did your make it to the Q and A?

As for veracity of the man, who sadly died a couple month’s back, he sure seemed to have plenty of admirers.

City University of New York - In Memoriam: Arthur S. Reber

In Memoriam: Arthur S. Reber

But it’s his ideas and words that I find valuable and most worth sharing, in the earnest hope of finding some who get it, and want to kick the tires, so to speak.

From the video:

1:07

… from my perspective it is incoherent to think of life without there being some sentience behind it. Some feeling, some subjectivity, it simply doesn’t make any other sense. … The reason is because it’s essential for survival if you’re not getting feedback about what’s good and what’s bad what’s nutritious and what’s toxic if you’re not having representations of this that have a subjective component to it, you’re a Darwinian dead end.

2:40
… The goal of the theory is to re-solve the Hard Problem. Now the Hard Problem famously was so dubbed by David Chalmers …

3:01

"The effort to solve a hard problem has proven to be difficult, it has crashed on the shoals of logic research philosophical debate and just plain pissiness, this from a lot of people who just really get their dander up with about it.

I’m not gonna solve the hard problem, no one’s gonna solve the hard problems. Certainly not with regard to the contemporary work that we’re doing.

But what I hope to do in the next hour is to resolve a hard problem. Like restructuring it and refocusing it. … The "Hard Problem” … , how do brains make minds, or to phrase it another way, how can material make the mental? The argument goes …"

1:06:05

QUESTION: Now I’m going to state the Hard Problem, to show that there is no solution to the so called emergentist dilemma, which is basically to explain when did the solution to the hard problem appear.

The Hard Problem is, if you have an organism that can do something and you have an explanation a physiological functional explanation of how it does, it a causal explanation. You explained what it can do, how do you explain that it feels? If it feels? That is the hard problem.

… what you need to explain, if you’re gonna solve the hard problem, is how and why organisms feel. And what you think that you’ve done is by reducing the Hard Problem to just one cell way way back. Then that somehow you’ve made it more tractable. On the contrary you’ve put it in broad relief why should any of that stuff that you describe for that first cell be felt?

1:07:20

Reber: Well I think the answer is, because without it you would not get a viable organism

And why is that?

Reber: Because the organism needs to be able to navigate a complex environment.

Navigating is doing!

1:07:37

Reber: It all emerges at the same time, I don’t see what the problem is. When you get life, you get sentience. When you have an organism that has to navigate a complex difficult environment, it has feelings. It has subjective experience, it’s part of the package.

My guess is that what we’ll find is that the origin of life crowd, … when these folks finally figure it out. I will bet you will discover the biomolecular components that also produce sentience. …

1:08:52

QUESTION: so are you essentially saying that mind, conscious, or sentience is the facility, or the process of a mechanism that allows an organism to respond adaptively to the environment over its lifetime. In which case, of course, what you’re saying it’s not falsifiable. That’s evolution, that’s not natural selection.

Reber: Yes.

QUESTION: so then basically you’ve reframed what a mind is …

Reber: Yes.

1:09:42

QUESTION: Okay, so then, it’s a circular argument. Isn’t it? So it’s not falsifiable?

Reber: Of course it is falsifiable. All you have to show—

QUESTION: Only if evolution stops!

1:09:53

Reber: No, no, no, once we’ve worked out what the underlying biomolecular components are, it’s dead easily falsifiable. All you have to do is tweak a molecule and pull it out and see if sentience is still there. See if you still have the adaptive functions.

1:10:10

Reber: It’s actually the same sort of strategy that people take when they work with anesthetics. The argument is how, do you know whether a specific organism is conscious? Whether its mind is operating and functioning. Well you anesthetize it. If it stops doing those things - you say okay well it’s no longer conscious. So it’s a parallel, it’s analogous kind of argument …

5

Yes. Unusually contentious, with the moderator stepping in to tell him he was not addressing the first question. I guess she was being helpful, but very unusual. In a couple of the questions, he alludes to “getting anthropomorphism right” but doesn’t say what that means. In the section you transcribed, he passes off proof to the future discovery of a biomolecular component and says that it will allow for a falsifiable experiment.

I’m not as bothered about the lack of a test for this theory as the person asking the question is. I don’t think it’s a problem of circular reasoning. I would rather see something added to this, something other than this “biomolecular component”, rather than waiting for it to be found.

6

Actually he was addressing the question, the listener just didn’t want to buy it.

I saw a perfect example of, how contentious and passion rousing challenging
philosophical meta-physical thinking is. Even among the great minds.

I noticed them, read the previous quoted words of that moment you mention.
So you too were waiting for a pat, black and white definition?

You point out the sharp questions.

1:05:03
**QUESTION: Excuse me! That does not sound like an answer to the second question. It’s a simple question: Are there degrees of consciousness? **

Reber: Consciousness is a label for subjectivity for internal representational systems that have a, what like to be, what’s it like to be, now fill-in-the-blank. Are there different degrees of this? There are different forms of it, there are different varieties. Do you want to put them along some scale of complexity, or scale of cognitive function?
You can. I mean we can …

What I noticed was how well Reber took in and fielded those questions, with concise responses.

That is why, rather than worrying about impressions, ego, and bias - I prefer focusing on the words that were actually shared. And to my ears, Reber did and excellent job of fielding them.

:flushed_face:

1:13:00

… Anthropomorphism …

Reber: … There’s a long section on anthropomorphism because this is really a big issue. Because if you do anthropomorphism badly you really get yourself in trouble. Like the clever Hans fallacy, the smart horse. That one does happen with (some) anthropomorphism, that’s an anthropomorphism gone wrong.

But on the other hand, as people like, Frans de Waal have pointed out -

Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?

1:13:15

Reber: Anthropomorphism is one of the intuitive pumps. It’s a driving engine of a lot of comparative work in comparative ecology and so you know I try to balance these things.

Because you know, your points are exactly right. They are good and these are complex issues. …

Where’s he failing?

7

I wasn’t judging. Not sure he did or didn’t, merely pointing that the moderator did that

I’ll concede this one. He’s talking about cells having desires, so it’s necessary to his theory. I see the connection from that early life to us.

8

edited Nov.19

Since I’d love to discuss Rebers thoughts, I get the feeling I need to introduce him and his ideas to people. Hope is a survival strategy in hopeless times,
Here’s a better outline of key points.

I’ve continued working on the project and think it’s time to replace these Reber quotes with my introduction. Reber’s transcript is available here.

The “Cellular Basis of Consciousness” proposal - A Student’s Introduction to Dr. Arthur Reber’s CBC

Recently I finished listening to Nick Lane’s “Transformer,” with its significant molecular and mitochondrial insights, and its superb epilogue titled “Self.” Then, someone at medium.com suggested Arthur Reber, and I was amazed by Dr. Reber’s 2018 presentation at Institut des sciences cognitives – UQAM. It seemed to me to dovetail with Professor Lane’s exposition and it feels to me like I’ve found the last major missing piece of the puzzle that I’ve been putting together for myself, and to share.

An Introduction to Dr Reber’s thoughts:

The “Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC)”

Reber’s 2018, Institut des sciences cognitives - UQAM presentation.

Where, Nick Lane took me down into our physiology and beyond—into chemistry, then into physics, and the Kreb’s cycle—before bringing it around to mitochondria and some mind-blowing new insights. Finishing with an elegant, most informed deconstruction of the so-called Hard Problem.

Arthur Reber took me back into deep time, origins, and to first functional cells.

Why did only one type of genetic structure succeed, out of what must have been bazillions of reactions over three billion years? Reber’s “Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC)” points the way to where to look for answers. I find it is consilient with the treasure trove of scientific information I’ve already accumulated. It’s harmonious with my perceptions as a lifelong deep time Evolution enthusiast. Then Reber finished with an impassioned, spot-on deconstruction, and a resolution, to Philosophy’s misguided meta-physical “Hard Problem”—What’s not to love, I ask?

How we ask our questions often says more about our own expectations, than about the topic.

I want to state that I believe Arthur Reber’s (who died a couple months ago) presentation deserves to be in the public domain and receive a hell of a lot more exposure than it has received!

Sadly, I can’t ask Dr. Reber for his permission, and I was so looking forward to a fun email exchange. I’m actually struck with a sense of loss and sadness by the news. I believe he would have approved of me and my intentions—and supported me in the following personal effort—now I see this as my memorial to Arthur Reber and his deep insights.

I’ve gone through his UQAM talk posted on YouTube and have transcribed extensive portions of it. They cover key highlights of the concept he was striving to share with others - and kept my commentary to a bare minimum and clearly marked.

Arthur Reber deserves to have serious students process what he had to say. Then to discuss it with each other. That is if you don’t want to get gobbled up by faith-based disconnect from reality, or philosophical worm holes. We need to come up with a better, realistic bottom up evolutionary-biological appreciation for who we are.

After that, unless you are changing minds, we are losing.

Getting to know the work of Dr. Reber feels like an arrival after a life long personal educational journey that got supercharged by David Attenborough’s 1979, “Life On Earth” extravaganza, where he used living creatures to tell the story of Evolution of Life on Earth. That led me to endless reading and listening, highlighted by the likes of Hazen, Lane, Sloan-Wilson, Solms, Damasio, Sapolsky , Levin, Turin, Reber, among many others. Sure the devil is in the details and there’s always more to learn and deeper understanding to achieve, but the map is complete. I challenge anyone to point out the gaps evidence and logic.

(not talking about details & minuscia, this is about the overarching layout of what we are looking at when trying to discover our reality bound ‘self’).

It all starts with an intellectual foundation, such as, appreciating the Human Mind ~ Physical Reality divide, then we work out from there.

9

That’s the short version up there.

10

NOVEMBER 19, 2025

Cellular Basis Consciousness #2 Reber’s Q/A - Student’s Resource, transcript of highlights.

Prof. Reber’s insightful Cellular Basis of Consciousness presents a key understanding regarding the actual physical facts surrounding the origins of our human consciousness. Metaphysics-enthusiast will sniff & resent & ignore til the cows come home. Still, here it is!
If you “believe” in Science. You’ll want to learn about Prof Reber’s suggestions. The Answers Are In Evolution.

I’m posting this transcript of highlights from Professor Reber’s talk, because I’m stunned at how little attention Reber’s “Cellular Basis of Consciousness” conception has received since Reber started sharing this with the academic community over seven years ago.

I believe the profoundly insightful Cellular Basis of Consciousness is key to understanding the actual physical facts regarding the source of our human consciousness. So I can well imagine how interests, who have hung their hat on metaphysical skyhooks, and human exceptionalism, would resent Dr. Reber, turn their backs while slamming doors, and bolting window shutters. That emotional defensiveness is palpable, as demonstrated by one of the questioners.

*I’m no scholar, but I can still be excited by clearer understanding via science, and I’d enjoy finding some like-minded, who see the promise in Reber’s proposal. Folks simply wanting to discuss it.

Because seems to me, rationalists really need to start developing some solid founding conceptions that are strong enough to stand up to the disconnected faith-dependent crowd, and their malicious anti-science crazy-making games.*

Biological evolution makes sense, and now we have evidence at every step in the process.

Here are my best proverbial trading cards - experts who have been at the leading edge of modern science, and capable of clearly explaining it to all who are curious to learn - David Attenborough’s 1979, “Life On Earth” - Hazen, Lane, Sloan-Wilson, Solms, Damasio, Sapolski, Levin, Turin, Reber, among many others.

Anyone want to toss in their suggestion?

1:07:00 … Is Reber making a circular argument? …