Are mitochondria conscious?

If you click the search line and type “consciousness,” you will see several posts about “Consciousness.”

The posts address the problem of defining consciousness, a problem whose solution has confounded philosophers for centuries. The problem is in defining its boundaries, i.e., when is something conscious and when is it not.

In previous posts, I have proposed a simple, unifying idea: Consciousness is the capacity to respond to stimuli. The more complex or varied the responses and the stimuli, the higher the degree of consciousness. By this definition, everything — from atoms to humans — is conscious to some degree.

This idea eliminates the need for an arbitrary cutoff. Instead of asking “Is it conscious?” we ask, “To what degree is it conscious?”

Turn to the usual questions: Is a person conscious? While asleep? During anesthesia? Emerging from the womb? Are chimpanzees conscious? Bees? Fish? Trees? Bacteria? The moon? The Sun? The universe? Your AI?

What are your answers?

All of them respond to stimuli. In that regard, they are all conscious. They sense and respond. A sleeping person responds to many stimuli including sound, light, temperature, touch.

A tree, for instance, leans toward sunlight, defends itself with chemical signals, and communicates with other trees. Is that conscious behavior?

Yes, because it is a reaction to stimuli.

Some may find this definition unsatisfying. Many prefer to define consciousness as including self-awareness, intention, or thought, typically human traits.

But such definitions are anthropocentric, centered on human experience. We shouldn’t require that consciousness conform to human patterns of introspection or language to be valid.

Consider a fly. Many would say it isn’t conscious — it merely responds reflexively. But I’ve struck flies, watched them fall to the ground, apparently lifeless. They were what is termed “unconscious,” that is, unresponsive.

Minutes later, I saw them revive and fly away. If an entity can shift between states we misleadingly call “unconscious” (unresponsive) and “conscious,” that should be a clue.

Humans clearly cycle between those states. So do sleeping and even hibernating bears. Flies, too. sleep, and clearly are less conscious than when they are awake.

Even deciduous trees enter dormancy in winter and reawaken in spring, sensing what they previously didn’t. Does that seasonal shift demonstrate tree-consciousness?

All entities can be in both an active/reactive state and a less reactive one. They are more conscious during the more responsive state.

This re-measures consciousness not by self-awareness or by mirror recognition, but by change in responsiveness. This test doesn’t give us a hard line, but it offers a gradient.

Consider a bacterium that ceases activity under stress and revives when conditions improve. It has this duality. When reactive, it should be considered conscious.

A virus that lies dormant inside a host, then activates under the right conditions, also shows a degree of consciousness.

What about an atom? It responds to forces and fields. But does it have an unresponsive state? Atoms do have minimal energy (ground) states when they are less responsive, and excited states when they are more responsive. These can parallel the unconscious/conscious test.

I was reminded of this by an article I just read in the May 2025 issue of Scientific American Magazine:

Central Processing Unit Long called the powerhouses of the cell, mitochondria are more like the cells’ motherboards, writes Martin Picard, an associate professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University.
His research team and others examined 3D images of the inner membrane of mitochondria, called the cristae, which is jam-packed with folded proteins. They discovered that mitochondria can communicate with their neighbors and influence each other—particularly in the way their cristae are aligned.

Over the years a picture has emerged showing how mitochondria from different parts of the body talk to one another, using hormones as their language.

The organelles also have a life cycle: old ones die out, and new ones are born out of existing ones. Communities of these organelles live within each cell, usually clustered around the nucleus.

Why this is important: The health of mitochondria directly impacts human health. The organelles receive signals about aspects of the environment in which we live, such as air pollution levels and stress triggers, and then integrate this information and emit signalssuch as molecules that regulate processes within the cell and throughout the body.

Consciousness is the degree of response to stimuli; There is no reason to believe it must be binary, centralized, or always synchronized within an organism.

Just as you can be sleeping (low consciousness), or dozing (higher consciousness), your immune system still responds to infection. Certain neurons remain active.

Consciousness is not a thing one has or entirely lacks, but a universal condition that fluctuates in intensity and distribution.

The whole of you can be partly conscious and partly unresponsive. Even parts of your brain can be unresponsive, while other parts are active and responsive.

Even a rock can be minimally conscious to the degree that it reacts with its environment. If it sits quietly in a desert, it still is conscious. It may change in size because of temperature changes, chemical effects, and erosion. Then, when it is in a river, it reacts chemically and physically with the water, and the river bottom, only to return as part of a geologic layer, eons later.

Bottom Line

Consciousness = responsiveness. It is not an “is/isn’t binary state, with clear boundaries. It does not rely on vague, emotional self-recognition, thought generation factors, or intent. It is not related to the ability to think.

Instead, consciousness is a measure of response to stimuli, with greater response and more stimuli being associated with greater consciousness.

Since everything responds to stimuli, everything, from the smallest quantum particle to the universe itself, is conscious to some degree.

Tests for consciousness are physiological, not psychological. Self-recognition is not a criterion; reaction is.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Are you a physicist? I could use your advice.

Here’s a speculative idea I’ve been working on — I’d love thoughts from anyone with a physics background.

We know from relativity that every object — person, planet, photon — has its own frame of reference. And relativity tells us these frames aren’t just different viewpoints; they are physically real.

Take the famous twin paradox: the traveling twin literally ages less. His clock actually runs slower. When the twins reunite, they don’t just seem to have experienced time differently — they have. Distances really contract or expand. It’s not just perception — it’s reality, shaped by motion and gravity.

There’s no universal “now.” No shared timeline. There is no single, absolute or underlying reality.

Each frame of reference is a physically distinct reality. It’s not just perception — it’s reality, shaped by motion and gravity.

Each of us literally exists in our own slightly different universe.

Most of these universes — these reference-frame realities — are nearly identical at human scales, which is why we think we share a single, common world. We believe we all see the same sunset, hear the same music, or strike the same tennis ball.

But what if this macroscopic agreement is only an illusion created by near-alignment?

At the quantum level, where even tiny differences matter, our separate realities may diverge enough to explain the fuzziness we observe — superpositions, uncertainty, entanglement.

I visualize this with a moiré pattern. Place multiple translucent, nearly identical grids on top of one another, and you get shifting interference patterns. Each translucent grid is a very slightly different reference frame — a slightly different universe.

The moiré effect — the pattern we each observe — is what we each call “reality.”

It shifts depending on how the layers (frames) interact. That’s why quantum phenomena seem blurry, probabilistic, or entangled. We’re seeing the interference pattern of multiple overlapping realities — not a single, fuzzy particle, but many near-identical versions of it, each in its own frame.

This isn’t Many-Worlds in the branching sense. It’s more like a standing wave of coexisting, overlapping universes, defined by their relative motion and position.

Entanglement could represent a kind of alignment across those frames — not “spooky action at a distance,” but synchronicity across already-linked layers.

Perhaps it’s all pure conjecture. But it feels like there’s something here — not just philosophically, but maybe even testably.

Has anyone proposed something similar? I’d love to hear from anyone who’s thought about this.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Shame. America the cruel. How far we have fallen.

Why?

They work. They buy. They pay taxes. They are assets, not burdens.

They have children, many of whom are citizens. They are not criminals, for if they were, they would be arrested like any other criminals are.

They are good human beings, whose only crime is not having a piece of paper. Why do we wish to destroy their lives? How do we benefit from their deportation? How do we benefit from their pain?

What is wrong with us, that we have lost our compassion and our morals? Why have we fallen so far?

Court lets Trump end protected status for 350,000 Venezuelans David G. Savage and Andrea Castillo, Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Trump administration may seek to deport nearly 350,000 Venezuelans who were granted “temporary protected status” under the Biden administration to live and work in the United States.

In a brief order, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from Donald Trump’s lawyers and set aside the decision of a federal judge in San Francisco who had blocked the repeal announced by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voted to deny the appeal.

Trump’s lawyers said the law gave the Biden administration the discretion to grant temporary protection to Venezuelans, but also gave the new administration the same discretion to end it.

The court’s decision does not involve the several hundred Venezuelans who were held in Texas and targeted for speedy deportation to El Salvador because they were alleged to be gang members. The justices blocked their deportation until they were offered a hearing.

But it will strip away the legal protection for an estimated 350,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2023 and could not return home because of the “severe humanitarian” crisis created by the regime of Nicolas Maduro. An additional 250,000 Venezuelans who arrived by 2021 remain protected until September.

“This is an abuse of the emergency docket,” said Ahilan Arulanantham, a UCLA law professor who is representing the Venezuelan beneficiaries of the temporary protected status, or TPS.

He added: “It would be preposterous to suggest there’s something urgent about the need to strip immigration status of several hundred thousand people who have lived here for years.”

It was one of two special authorities used by the Biden administration that face possible repeal now.

Last week, Trump’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to also revoke the special “grant of parole” that allowed 532,000 immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to legally enter the United States on personally financed flights.
A judge in Boston blocked Noem’s repeal of the parole authority.
The Biden administration granted the TPS under a 1990 law. It said the U.S. government may extend relief to immigrants who cannot return home because of an armed conflict, natural disaster or other “extraordinary and temporary conditions.”

Dirtbags, not humans.

Shortly before leaving office, Alejandro Mayorkas, Biden’s Homeland Security secretary, extended the TPS for the Venezuelans for 18 months.

While nationals from 17 countries qualify for TPS, the largest number from any country are Venezuelans. The Trump administration moved quickly to reverse course.

“As its name suggests,” TPS provides “temporary — not permanent — relief to aliens who cannot safely return to their homes,” Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer wrote in his appeal last week.

Shortly after she was confirmed, Noem said the special protection for the Venezuelans was “contrary to the national interest.”

She referred to them as “dirtbags.”

Apparently, Noem is not just a mean-spririted dog killer.

In a TV interview, she also claimed that “Venezuela purposely emptied out their prisons, emptied out their mental health facilities and sent them to the United States of America.”

A lie, of course. But what else would you expect?

The ACLU Foundations of Northern and Southern California and the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law filed suit in San Francisco. Their lawyers argued the conditions in Venezuela remain extremely dangerous.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen agreed and blocked Noem’s repeal order from taking effect nationwide. He said the “unprecedented action of vacating existing TPS” was a “step never taken by any administration.”

He ruled Noem’s order was “arbitrary and capricious” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because it did not offer a reasoned explanation for the change in regulations. It was also “motivated by unconstitutional animus,” he said.

“They think a President should have decency and compassion!”

The judge also found that tens of thousands of American children could be separated from their parents if the adults’ temporary protected status were repealed.

When the 9th Circuit Court refused to lift the judge’s temporary order, the solicitor general appealed to the Supreme Court on May 1.

Last week, the State Department reissued an “extreme danger” travel advisory for Venezuela, urging Americans to leave the country immediately or to “prepare a will and designate appropriate insurance beneficiaries and/or power of attorney.”

“Do not travel to or remain in Venezuela due to the high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure,” the advisory states.

Trump’s lawyers downplayed the impact of a ruling lifting TPS. They told the justices that none of the plaintiffs is facing immediate deportation.

Each of them “will have the ability to challenge on an individual basis whether removal is proper — or seek to stay, withhold or otherwise obtain relief from any order of removal — through ordinary” immigration courts, he said.

Arulanantham said the effect will be substantial. Many of the beneficiaries have no other protection from deportation. Some have pending applications, such as for asylum.

But immigration authorities have begun detaining those with pending asylum claims. Others, who entered within the last two years, could be subject to expedited deportation.

Economic harm would be felt even more immediately, Arulanantham said. Once work permits provided through TPS are invalidated, employers would be forced to let workers go.

That means families would be unable to pay rent or feed their children, as well as result in economic losses felt in communities across the country.

How does this “Make America Great, Again”?

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY

Bad ideas lead to bad results

A decision based on a false belief, will probably be a bad decision.

Rep. Jay Obernolte (R., Calif.), a Budget Committee member, said the Republican plan would unquestionably put the country on a stronger fiscal footing. “If you have to pick between a higher-tax, higher-spending regime and a lower-tax, lower-spending regime, the latter is always better for economic growth,” he said.

That belief may be common, but it is not supported by fact. Using it as a basis for Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax cut for the rich adds greater falsity.

1. Obernolte’s statement conveniently omits the questions, “Lower tax for whom?” and “Lower spending for whom?”

In the case of Trump’s tax cut, the answers are: “Lower tax for the rich” and “lower spending for the rest of America.” As is usual for the right wing, the tax cut makes the rich richer and the rest poorer.

2. Because the U.S. government is Monetarily Sovereign, we never “have to pick between a higher-tax, higher-spending regime and a lower-tax, lower-spending regime.” We can and should have a lower tax (especially for the poorer), higher spending regime.

3. Federal debt and deficits are not a burden on the federal government or on taxpayers. Being Monetarily Sovereign, the federal government has infinite dollars to fund any debt

4. The so-called “federal debt” is neither “federal” nor “debt.” It is the total of dollars deposited into Treasury Security accounts, wholly owned by depositors and held for safekeeping by the government (Think: Safe deposit boxes).

5, The “debt” is not a burden on taxpayers. Tax rates have nothing to do with the “debt.” Federal tax rates are arbitrarily chosen by Congress for political reasons, not to fund spending. (By contrast, state and local taxes do fund monetarily non-sovereign state and local spending.)

6. The purposes of federal taxes are:

A. To control the economy by taxing what the government wishes to discourage and by giving tax breaks to what the government wishes to reward

B. To assure demand for the U.S. dollar by requiring taxes to be paid in dollars.

7. Federal deficit spending does not cause inflation. See: “At long last, let’s put this inflation question to bed.” Inflations, i.e, general increases in prices, are based on shortages of crucial goods and services. Federal deficit spending does not create those shortages.

Even during wars, it’s not the federal spending that causes shortages; it’s the war needs. If during a war, federal spending was lower, inflation would be worse, as there would be even fewer consumer goods.

In fact, federal deficit spending can cure inflation when the spending supports the availability of scarce goods and services.

Example: The notorious Zimbabwe inflation was caused by a food shortage. It could have been cured by government spending to aid farming and imports of food. Instead, the government simply printed currency, which created the illusion that the currency creation caused the inflation.

The most recent inflation was caused by COVID-related shortages of oil, food, metals, paper, lumber, shipping, labor and other needs. Government spending has helped reduce those shortages and inflation.

8. Just as federal deficit spending does not cause inflation, it also does not force interest rates up.

A. Interest rate increases add to business costs, which result in higher, not lower prices.

B. Interest rate increases are an arbitrary option of the Federal Reserve because of the mistaken belief that they cure inflation. The Fed also raises rates to encourage the purchase of Treasury Securities. This takes spending dollars from the economy, and therefore is recessive.

The federal government does not need to sell Treasury securities to pay its bills. It pays all its bills with newly created dollars, not by so-called borrowing.

Because inflation is supply-based, not demand-based, recessions do not cure inflation. In fact, we can have both simultaneously. It is called “stagflation.”

There are those of a Libertarian bent who simply do not like government (except when they receive such benefits as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, highways, military defense, police defense, schools, parks, disaster relief, food and drug inspection, new drug R&D, FBI, CIA, etc.)

They invent false reasons why government spending should be cut (except for programs that benefit them).

Federal deficit spending is necessary for economic growth. It is part of the formula for Gross Domestic Product:

GDP = Federal Spending + Non-federal Spending + Net Exports

As you can see from the following graph, relative declines in federal spending (green) precede recessions (vertical gray bars). Increases and decreases in federal deficit spending are generally associated with increases and decreases in GDP.

Is anyone fooled by the pols who pretend outrage at the federal deficit and debt, and then pass legislation that widens the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and the rest?

Those folks simply are the greedy rich. I don’t know what to say about the media and economists who go along with that charade.

Bottom line: The economy always does better when the federal government spends more and taxes less. That’s simple algebra. Given the power, my first act would be to eliminate FICA, and give everyone Medicare.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell

Monetary Sovereignty

Twitter: @rodgermitchell

Search #monetarysovereignty

Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell;

MUCK RACK: https://muckrack.com/rodger-malcolm-mitchell;

https://www.academia.edu/

……………………………………………………………………..

A Government’s Sole Purpose is to Improve and Protect The People’s Lives.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY