A Paradigm Shift in Biology
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Dr. Bhakti Niskama Shanta
Jul 4, 2015, 10:51:08 PM7/4/15
to Online_Sadhu_Sanga
Dear Friends:
Vedantic view states that where ever
there is life there is consciousness and where ever there is consciousness
there is life. For last 9 years under the guidance of our siksha Gurudev Sripad
Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. (Serving Director, Bhakti Vedanta
Institute: www.bviscs.org and Founder of Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute: www.scsiscs.org) we are trying to spread this concept among scientists via
university outreach, seminars, conferences, publications and online discussions
in this forum. We are happy to see that our efforts created some influence and
that researchers (especially from India) are now publishing papers on cell
sentience. This is a welcome development and in this email we want to provide a
few developments in scientific research that has caused a paradigm shift in our
understanding of life and its origin.
Some Christians do not accept that
animals have souls.[1] In the
seventeenth century French philosopher René Descartes claimed that only human's
body has a soul, and all other organisms are mere automatons made of meat and
bones. In Descartes words “Animals are like robots: they cannot reason or feel
pain”.[2]
Based on this ideology many innocent animals are treated cruelly on a daily
basis for the purpose of food, entertainment, research, and profit. Influenced
by Descartes most of the scientists were also thinking that only humans are
conscious and all other creatures are not. However, the ubiquity of
consciousness in all living organisms is now well established. Anthony J.
Trewavas a Plant Physiologist and Molecular Biologist at the University of
Edinburgh stated in his paper[3]
that “consciousness in its many forms could well be ubiquitous, even down to
the simplest of organisms.” In this article Trewavas discusses the various
published results that establish the presence of consciousness in varieties of
organisms, even in those which do not have brain organ (plants and unicellular
organisms like bacteria). Eshel Ben-Jacob (was a theoretical and experimental physicist at Tel Aviv
University, holder of the Maguy-Glass Chair in Physics of Complex Systems) is a
pioneer in the study of bacterial intelligence and social behaviors of
bacteria. Ben-Jacob stated in his paper[4]
'Seeking the foundations of cognition in
bacteria: From Schrödinger's negative entropy to latent information':
"{A}ll organisms, including
bacteria, the most primitive (fundamental) ones, must be able to sense the
environment and perform internal information processing for thriving on latent
information embedded in the complexity of their environment. We then propose
that by acting together, bacteria can perform this most elementary cognitive
function more efficiently as can be illustrated by their cooperative behavior
(colonial or inter-cellular self-organization). As a member of a complex
superorganism-the colony-each unit (bacteria) must possess the ability to sense
and communicate with the other units comprising the collective and perform its
task within a distribution of tasks. Bacterial communication thus entails
collective sensing and cooperativity. The fundamental (primitive) elements of
cognition in such systems include interpretation of (chemical) messages,
distinction between internal and external information, and some self vs.,
non-self distinction (peers and cheaters)."
Dr. Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal asked a
question: 'can a retinal cell be
conscious?'
We must note that not only unicellular
organisms display cognitive behavior, but also the individual cells in the multicellular
organisms also exhibit individual cognitive behavior. Gametes of multicellular
living entities display sentient cell-cell communication and chemotaxis.[5]
Sperm cells and oocytes use several cognitive transmitters.[6]
Even plant cells also have sensory perception and integration of these multiple
sensory perceptions into adaptive actions helps them in signaling and
communication.[7] Plant
cells and neurons in other multicellular organisms produce sentient action
potentials.[8] Root
cells of plants exhibit sentient features at the transition zone interpolated
between the apical meristem and elongation region.[9]
Cells execute programmed cell death where they perform suicide by following an
organized cascade of events, known as apoptosis. Cells of multicellular
organism use various cell receptors for various functions. To coordinate
functions in cell communities, they use integration-receptors which respond to
information signals. In different environments, using intercellular signaling
molecules cells can select and execute various essential actions.[10]
Identity receptors are also known as self-receptors, or
histocompatibility-receptors, and they help cells to have individual and
collective identity.[11]
Therefore, they help cellular communities to collectively respond to a central
command—and are used by the immune system in the multicellular organisms to
discriminate self from invader.
In his book, Evolution:
A View from the 21st Century, James
A. Shapiro, Professor in Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at
the University of Chicago provided ample examples where molecular biology has
recognized cell cognition from cell sensing, information transfer, decision-making
processes. In this book Shapiro thoroughly disproves traditional Darwinian evolution
theory that is widely accepted by biologists. Shapiro stated in the book,
"Given the exemplary status of
biological evolution, we can anticipate that a paradigm shift in our
understanding of that subject will have repercussions far outside the life
sciences. A shift from thinking about gradual selection of localized random
changes to sudden genome restructuring by sensory network-influenced cell
systems is a major conceptual change. It replaces the “invisible hands” of
geological time and natural selection with cognitive networks and cellular
functions for self-modification. The emphasis is systemic rather than atomistic
and information-based rather than stochastic."
Even though 21st century biology
established that from human to the smallest cells (bacteria without brain
organ), all living organisms are conscious entities, several enthusiastic
propositions in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), claim that by
simulating the neuronal network in the brain we can produce conscious machines.
With ample empirical evidence and emphasis of halting problem (is there a
program which determines whether any given algorithm halts for a given input?)
Sir Roger Penrose (a mathematician and physicist at Oxford University) also
explained the non-algorithmic nature of mind in his book The Emperor’s New Mind.[12]
In his book he continually highlights that mental processes are intrinsically
more potent than computational processes. Penrose asks “Can algorithm discover
theorems like Turing’s and Gödel’s”. Our minds may come up with solutions to
different questions for which there is no general algorithm. Therefore we must
know what algorithms cannot do.
The “identity theory” explains that
states and processes of the mind are alike to states and processes of the
brain. Therefore, scientists and philosophers following the concept of identity
theory believe that the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.[13]
However, despite all their knowledge on brain scientists still do not know how
the neural correlates coalesce to produce subjective experiences. Tononi[14]
tried to explain consciousness with a theoretical framework “Integrated
Information Theory of Consciousness (IITC)”. Tononi thought that human brain
integrates information and that is why it produces conscious behavior. The
foundation of Tononi’s IITC is based on two thought experiments: (1) generation
of information and (2) integration with previous memories (integrated
information). The main point that Tononi emphasized in his first thought
experiment is that the explanations of experience necessitate a situation where
they distinguish between several possible choices; in other words, they must
generate information. In second thought experiment Tononi explains that
information alone is not enough for conscious experience. It is possible to
increase the capacity of artificial smell detectors where they can distinguish
between smells much more than human (>10,000). However, mere producing more
information than that of human nose cannot provide the artificial smell
detectors the ability to experience the smell the way human does. Tononi
explained the major difference between artificial detector and human experience
is that in case of artificial detector each aroma is detected in seclusion of
every other aroma. Even if the entries of other aromas (except the one
detected) are deleted from the database of the machine we will find exactly the
same response by the artificial detector. Human nose has different neurons
which are specifically equipped to sense particular smells. It may be possible
that by selective damage of certain olfactory receptors an individual may lose
the ability to smell a particular aroma. In case of human subject even though
the process of detection of a particular aroma is not itself integrated, the
experience of smell is thoroughly integrated concerning the type of information
it records in response. When someone smells a particular aroma the effect that
it has on subject’s brain is integrated across many aspects of his/her memory
and it is impossible for a neurosurgeon to eliminate the memory of that
experience without affecting anything else. Reductionistic view of
consciousness finds its limits here because the changes in the memory caused by
subject’s experience are not localized to any one part of his/her brain.
Computation is reversible but cognition is not[15]
and that is why Maguire et al.[16]
stated:
“[A] form of magic is going on in the
brain, which is beyond computational modelling”.
Conscious behavior is an outcome of
integrated information in mind and those conscious responses cannot be
decomposed or disintegrated into a set of causally independent parts. The
failure to produce machines that can produce integrated information is the
reason why scientists in this field believe that machines can never develop the
ability to have subjective experience. Consciousness is a fundamental property
of animated objects – ‘living organisms’ – that distinguish them from inanimate
objects – ‘matter’.
To establish the difference between
machine and organism Neil D Theise posted recently in our forum his write-up ‘Assessing the
potential of induced liver regeneration’ published in Nature, where he stated that:
“The dominant metaphor for biological
structures—biomolecules, cells, tissues or bodies—has long been that of the
machine. Researchers engage in biological ‘engineering’, refer to ‘molecular
motors’ and often describe cells as tissue ‘building blocks’. However,
biological entities at all levels of scale are not machines10,11.
They are not described by classical, Newtonian mechanics. Their behaviors are
not deterministic, but stochastic. They are self-organizing, complex, dynamic
systems. As such they are creative, adaptive and alive. Success in modeling
such biological systems, as demonstrated by Takebe et al.1, depends
on letting them do what they do best. Perhaps a more accurate word to describe
the generation of such models is ‘cultivation’ rather than bioengineering.”
This is a good attempt to describe the
difference between biological systems and machines but we must realize that the
concept of self-organization was first developed in chemistry and physics and
its direct application to a living system is highly doubtful. In 1977 Ilya
Prigogine received Nobel Prize in Chemistry and he claimed that systems
significantly out of equilibrium – “dissipative structures” tend to
spontaneously organize themselves. Prigogine cited vortex (say a tornado in
thunderstorm) as example of self-organization.[17]
When a stable mass of dry and cold air travels over a stable mass of humid and
warm air, a severe thunderstorm or tornado can develop. The thunderstorm or
tornado has a localized high degree of organization than is present in either
of the air masses alone. Following such type of analogies and examples of self
ordering molecules during influx of energy, a few biologists try to explain the
origin of highly complex macromolecules essential for living systems. However,
such analogies have negligible bearing towards addressing the question of life,
as Prigogine stated[18]
“There is still a gap between the most complex structures we can produce in
nonequilibrium situations in chemistry and the complexity we find in biology.”
Such simple analysis can never address the complexity of even a simple living cell.
Prigogine confirms[19]
the same:
“The problem of biological order
involves the transition from the molecular activity to the supermolecular order
of the cell. This problem is far from being solved.”
The main problem is that a physical analysis
can only elucidate the structure and function of a system as characterized from
an external viewpoint. However, living organisms are conscious systems and
their subjective experiences are within. Even the primitive cellular life
requires a certain minimum number of systems, like (1) the means to transmit
heredity (RNA, DNA, or something similar), (2) a mechanism to obtain energy to
generate work (metabolic system), (3) an enclosure to hold and protect these
components from the environment (cell membrane), and finally (4) a unique
principle to connect all of these components together (sentience). Can
self-organization theory address all these requirements? Even though it is
named as self-organization, this reductionistic concept has no 'self' at all.
In Analytic
German philosopher Immanuel Kant explained the concept “natural teleology” or
“natural purpose” or “natural end” (Naturzweck)
(§§64-65). To distinguish
living organisms from artifacts Kant explained for both the cases how two
different necessary conditions are satisfied for ends. The condition applicable
for ends is that “the parts... [be] possible only through their relation to the
whole” or each part exists “for the sake of the others and of the whole” (373).
In designer’s concept of the whole this condition is satisfied in the case of
artifacts by a linear causality. The legs and the seat of a chair or balance
wheel, hairspring, gear system and so on in a watch can exist only in virtue of
designer’s concept of the whole. In other words, the legs of the chair or the
hairspring of the watch exist only in order that the chair or watch as a whole
should exist. In the case of living organisms (Naturzweck) this condition is satisfied in a circular causality of
the organic whole: “the parts [must] combine themselves into the unity of a
whole by being reciprocally the cause and effect of one another’s form” (373).
Even though in both artifacts and living organisms the ends are determined by
purpose (a cognitive act), in the case of artifacts the purpose (designer) is
outside the system (external teleology) and in the case of living organism the
purpose is within (internal teleology).
Following a linear
logic, in the case of artifact parts are produced and combined into a whole by
the designer. On the other hand, following a circular logic the body of the
living organism appears from another living organism by a developmental process
(cell division) and not by the linear accumulation of parts – design. Moreover,
life (Naturzweck) has fundamental
“formative force” (bildende Kraft)
that is responsible for an organism’s self-causing character. It is impossible
for a designer to produce an artifact with these two fundamental characters (Naturzweck and bildende Kraft) that life has. As Kant explained, “one wheel in the
watch does not produce another, and still less does one watch produce other
watches” (§65, 374). The empirical evidence in frontier biology also confirms
Immanuel Kant’s statement[20] “there will never be a
Newton of the blade of grass, because human science will never be able to
explain how a living being can originate from inanimate matter”. For
confirmation, in his book “This is
Biology,”[21]
20th century’s leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote,
“It is a little
difficult to understand why the machine concept of organism could have had such
long lasting popularity. After all, no machine has ever built itself,
replicated itself, programmed itself, or been able to procure its own energy.
The similarity between an organism and a machine is exceedingly superficial.”
Abiogenesis and
evolution theory explain that first life came from the accumulation of inert
matter and biodiversity is a result of random mutation and natural selection.
Evolutionary theory and principles in biology are applied directly to behavior,
and they avoid the psychological, or cognitive, level analysis. Both
abiogenesis and evolution theory are outcome of mechanistic or reductionistic
thinking and that is why they cannot explain how organism got the cognitive
features like thinking, feeling and willing. These concepts also do not explain
how matter developed two fundamental characters (Naturzweck and bildende Kraft)
that life has. Therefore, both origin and evolution of life must be rewritten
on the basis of sentience.
Summary of the Developments:
1.
Reductionistic view in
biology finds its limits and biology should shift its lens from the parts to
the whole.
2.
Science witnessed
that biology evolved from DNA-centrism (central dogma) to cell-centrism, where
cells operate in a sentient manner which a few biologists are trying to compare
with information processing and on the other hand, some try to see it as computational.
However, none of these explanations include the sensory feature of how cells
act. All these developments give the impression that cell possesses a mind
which is the essential character of cognition. In contrast to genetic
determinism, scientific evidence is forcing the scientists, philosophers and
other scholars to reconsider the explanations of cognition as traditionally
associated with life. In his book, Evolution:
A View from the 21st Century, James
A. Shapiro sated:
“The
selected cases just described are examples where molecular biology has
identified specific components of cell sensing, information transfer, and
decision-making processes. In other words, we have numerous precise molecular
descriptions of cell cognition, which range all the way from bacterial
nutrition to mammalian cell biology and development. The cognitive, informatic
view of how living cells operate and utilize their genomes is radically
different from the genetic determinism perspective articulated most succinctly,
in the last century, by Francis Crick’s famous “Central Dogma of Molecular
Biology.””
3.
Consciousness
is ubiquitous in all living organisms starting from bacteria to human being.
4.
The individual cells
in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.
5.
The scientific
confirmation of existence of consciousness in unicellular organisms and plants
certainly establish that brain is not the source of consciousness. Therefore,
brain based analysis to understand consciousness (neuronal analysis) does not
have bright prospects.
6.
Using the brain
analogy some scientists consider the cell nucleus (because DNA and genes are
within the cell nucleus) as an equivalent to the brain of a cell. Cell can
sustain an enucleation operation (the operation in which a cell’s nucleus is
removed). It has been reported that enucleated cells continue to survive and
display a regulated control of their biological processes for up to three
months.[22]
Therefore, for both single-cell and also multicellular organisms, the brain is
not the source of life.
7.
Information approach
and self-organization principles are not sufficient to explain life and its
origin.
8.
The proposals like
“artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are
only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties
like internal teleology (Naturzweck)
and formative force (bildende Kraft).
In other words, a machine will never do things for its own internal purpose and
it cannot build itself.
9.
Material
origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists
must overcome and should instead find the proper tools to explain the origin
and evolution of life from the realm of sentience.
10. Vedantic scholars, Aristotle, Kant (using the argument of
teleology) and Hegel all claimed that biological systems (organisms) are
distinct from inanimate objects (mechanical and chemical systems). Purpose and
meaning are inseparable aspects of life. We cannot expect those in dead
molecules. We don’t give any moral and ethical importance to an accumulation of
dead molecules, but such a consideration is a must to the life principle.
Hence, abiogenesis is an insult to the life force. To understand life and its origin
one must also give a proper attention towards ancient Eastern Vedantic
philosophical concept of atma,
Aristotle’s concept of Soul and Hegel’s explanation of Concept.
Sincerely,
Bhakti Niskama Shanta
Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute
References:
[2] Proctor , H.S., Carder, G. and Cornish, A.R. (2013).
Searching for animal sentience: A systematic review of the scientific
literature. Animals, Vol. 2, pp.
882-906.
[3] Trewavas, A.J. and
Baluška, F. (2011). The ubiquity of consciousness: The ubiquity of consciousness,
cognition and intelligence in life. EMBO
Rep., Vol. 12, pp. 1221-1225.
[4] Ben-Jacob, E.,
Shapira, Y., and Tauber, A.I. (2006). Seeking the foundations of cognition in
bacteria. from Schrödinger’s negative entropy to latent information. Physica A, Vol. 359, pp. 495-524.
[5] Hu, J. H., Yang, N.,
Ma, Y. H., Jiang, J., Zhang, J. F., Fei, J. and Guo, L. H. (2004).
Identification of glutamate receptors and transporters in mouse and human
sperm. J Andr., Vol. 25, pp. 140-146.
[6] Bray, C., Son, J. H.,
Kumar, P. and Meizel, S. (2005). Mice deficient in CHRNA7, a subunit of the
nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, produce sperm with impaired motility. Biol Repr., Vol. 73, pp. 807-814.
[7] Trewavas A. (2007).
Response to Alpi et al.: Plant neurobiology—all metaphors have value. Trends Plant Sci., Vol. 12, pp. 231-233.
[8] Fromm, J. and Lautner,
S. (2007). Electrical signals and their physiological significance in plants. Plant Cell Environ., Vol. 30, pp.
249-257.
[9] Baluška, F., Mancuso,
S., Volkmann, D. and Barlow, P. W. (2004). Root apices as plant command
centres: the unique brain-like status of the root apex transition zone. Biologia, Vol. 59, pp. 9-14.
[10] Lane, N. (2008).
Marine microbiology: origins of death. Nature,
Vol. 453, pp. 583-585.
[11] Langman, R. E. (1978).
Cell-mediated immunity and the major histocompatibility complex. Reviews of Physiology, Biochemistry and
Pharmacology, Volume. 81, pp. 1-37.
[12] Penrose, R. (1989). The Emperor’s New Mind. Oxford
University Press.
[13] Place, U. T. (1956). Is Consciousness a
Brain Process? British J. Psychology,
Vol. 47, pp. 44-50.
[14] Tononi, G. (2008). Consciousness as
integrated information: a provisional manifesto. The Biological Bulletin, 215(3), 216-242.
[15] Bringsjord, S. and Zenzen, M. (1997).
Cognition is not computation: The argument from irreversibility. Synthese, Vol. 113(2), pp. 285-320.
[16] Maguire, P., Moser, P., Maguire, R. and
Griffith, V. (2014). Is consciousness computable? Quantifying integrated
information using algorithmic information theory. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M.
McShane, and B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings
of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX:
Cognitive Science Society.
[17] Progogine, I. (1996). The end of certainity. The Free Press, New York, p. 3.
[18] Ibid., p. 71.
[19] Prigogine, I. and
Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos.
New York, Bantam Books, p. 175.
[21] Mayr, E. (1997). This Is Biology: The Science of the Living World. The Belknap Press
of Harvard University Press.
[22] Chapman, C. J.,
Nugent, N. A. and Schreiber, R. W. (1966). Nucleic acid synthesis in the
chloroplasts of acetabularia mediterranea. Plant
Physiol., Vol. 41, pp. 589-592.
From: Neil Theise
Date: 3 July 2015
Message:
just
a little piece (one column) i had in Nature
Medicine on the metaphors (machine vs....) we use in biomed speak. very
short. third essay of the three in the pdf. enjoy ;-)
From: Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Date: 29 June 2015
Message:
Hello,
Then,
can a retinal cell be conscious?
Regards,
Ram
----------------------------------------------------------
Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.
Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)
Vision
Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.
25
Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA
From: A.K. Mukhopadhyay,
MD.
Date: 21 June 2015
Message:
Dear
Consciousness Scientist
Being
a medical doctor as well a member of your group, I was engaged in a different
kind of work since January this year.
Conceptually
I was working on two queries:
1.
Can we connect molecular biology with
consciousness?
2.
Is it ever possible to decipher the multi-layered, hierarchically nested,
decision-making labyrinth of cellular consciousness?
"Perhaps
yes!" Once we connect the cognitive
networks inside the cell we need a Model of the ware which does lead from
information to consciousness
Read
this Paper, Systems Cell: A Testable Model for Systems Holism
The
Abstract of this Paper has been reflected in the Message I wrote for the Nepal
Conference in April, 2015 (see the Souvenir).
Please
comment on-line on the Paper. It will go
directly to journal website. There are provisions for this at the end of the
Paper.
Meanwhile
I am enclosing a few comments offered by
my colleagues at AIIMS
With
cordial regards
--
A.K.Mukhopadhyay,
MD.
Prof.
& Head
Department
of Laboratory Medicine
Po.
Box. No. 4938
All
India Institute of Medical Sciences
New Delhi 110 029
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages