### Cell's bells -rhymes with Hell's bells

In order to survive a cell must compete in its environment. This means that it must replicate, and avoid being stopped from completing that task. The organism or process that exists is that which replicates or 'catalyzes' itself. The imperfect process does not necessarily produce an exact copy and can produce a sequence of existences that repeat.

To achieve this, it must have the material of which it is composed. The point of this intellectual exercise is to define the possible options that a single localized organism has to further that process. A molecule which catalyzes its own self from the surrounding environment would be the simplest A+B->A+A+? This system would have no degrees of freedom in its operation.

Step 2: Isolation. The organism has a choice of accepting or rejecting material for their advantage. The choice is without option and thus also has no degree of freedom as it is simple selective absorption.

Step 3: The organism senses environment and moves toward the source of needed material which provides motion and / or material. At this point it has two paths to take:
A. Material for 'continued motion'
B. Material for replication.
At this point in a type of organism, would be the first freedom. So, if faced with a choice of movement toward energy or raw material, which would it choose and I mean what organism would win the war of life.

If the organism moved toward energy and favored this above material it would eventually fail in decay. If it sought material without energy to operate it would become inanimate and dead. So it must have both in some balance.

What is the optimum equation or are there multiple solutions which would be possible niches of action or attractors? It would seem that a mechanism which was 'satisfaction' would determine which was chosen. So the equation or process description would be:
[X is experimentally chosen by death]
If (StoredEnergy << X) then motion is selected toward energy source else Material. If (X == 0 ( or some semblance )) then move toward Material. It would seem that an organism that could become dormant would have a better chance of survival also.

So then the core of life is replication and when combined with motion it develops a state of optimum action or choice that comes from its structure and is modified by its environment. The organism 'chooses' even at this level and the complexity and actual outcome would be subject to the rules of relationship. Once there are competing relationships the nature of absolute quantum comes into play and though this situation is the simplest I can propose to study the process, it has in it the seed of the thing which is inherent in all choice. What is greater 2 or 2?

When a solution is forced in the case of life, then something rather odd is already incorporated in life itself. It becomes infinite by dealing with the issue of quantum indifference. It would seem that a solution is presented and it would be inherent in any choice made by any organism. Life cannot tolerate permanent indecision, this is also death. So, IF(A+rnd(n) >> B+rnd(m)). So the simplest motive process must have AXIS(x y z), energy, material, complex choice and randomness.

The next step is to relate this to the possible action products in a neural array. An organism which does not in some way incorporate the above properties is doomed and thus, even at the ultimate level of consciousness, an organism must have this as a guiding structure. I am guessing that the relationship of these concepts are also burned into a persons cells at a level that is not the structure of the relationship of dendrites and axons. Much like the duality of light, the nature of thought is more apparent if the process is better understood as a whole.

It seems that [IF(A+Y*sin(rnd(n)) >> B+Z*sin(rnd(m))] would also be a valid solution which would select both options. It seems that [IF(A+(n)) >> B+(m)) --!n!m boolean] would also be a valid solution which would select both options. And without the equations, it would mean that stalemate is overcome by either randomness or cyclic effect or step function or any combination the those.

I realize this is an over simplification, but that was the point. It was to look at the central premise of life and see how the attractors interact and form a model framework which can effectively emulate these principles in design and control of simple cellular interactions. It is fairly obvious that there is neural pattern that cannot be identified at the electrical or synapse level. I will call that a developed cell personality.

Certainly when the vast complexity of life as it exists is examined the complexity expands as a factorial of infinities. It does not mean that it is not possible to characterize it in some required aspect, but that the potential variations which still conform to the underlying requisites is virtually infinite in form.