I'm reproducing here a well-written article by Bhakti Niskama Shanta on life and consciousness that should provoke some thought. The article is available from his website, but the server appears to be down at the moment, so I'm sharing it here.
This is from Communicative & Integrative Biology /abstract content
|
Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic
view
ArticleDoiMeta
DOI:10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138
e1085138
Received: 7 Jul 2015
Accepted:
17 Aug 2015
Accepted author version posted online: 09 Oct
2015
/ArticleDoiMeta
Alert me
© 2015 The Author(s). Published with license by
Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Abstract
In the past, philosophers, scientists, and even
the general opinion, had no problem in accepting the existence of consciousness
in the same way as the existence of the physical world. After the advent of
Newtonian mechanics, science embraced a complete materialistic conception about
reality. Scientists started proposing hypotheses like abiogenesis (origin of
first life from accumulation of atoms and molecules) and the Big Bang theory
(the explosion theory for explaining the origin of universe). How the universe
came to be what it is now is a key philosophical question. The hypothesis that
it came from Nothing (as proposed by Stephen Hawking, among others), proves to
be dissembling, since the quantum vacuum can hardly be considered a void. In
modern science, it is generally assumed that matter existed before the universe
came to be. Modern science hypothesizes that the manifestation of life on Earth
is nothing but a mere increment in the complexity of matter — and hence is an
outcome of evolution of matter (chemical evolution) following the Big Bang.
After the manifestation of life, modern science believed that chemical
evolution transformed itself into biological evolution, which then had caused
the entire biodiversity on our planet. The ontological view of the organism as
a complex machine presumes life as just a chance occurrence, without any inner
purpose. This approach in science leaves no room for the subjective aspect of
consciousness in its attempt to know the world as the relationships among
forces, atoms, and molecules. On the other hand, the Vedāntic view states that
the origin of everything material and nonmaterial is sentient and absolute
(unconditioned). Thus, sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself –
omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. This is the scientifically verified
law of experience. Life is essentially cognitive and conscious. And,
consciousness, which is fundamental, manifests itself in the gradational forms
of all sentient and insentient nature. In contrast to the idea of objective
evolution of bodies, as envisioned by Darwin and followers, Vedānta advocates
the idea of subjective evolution of consciousness as the developing principle
of the world. In this paper, an attempt has been made to highlight a few
relevant developments supporting a sentient view of life in scientific
research, which has caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of life and
its origin.
Keywords
artificial intelligence, brain, consciousness, cell sentience,
Darwinism, machine, mind, origin of life,
organism, teleology
Related articles
AddThis Button BEGIN Share
on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email
More Sharing Services
AddThis
Button END
Link
Recommend to:
Abstract
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
In the past, philosophers, scientists, and even
the general opinion, had no problem in accepting the existence of consciousness
in the same way as the existence of the physical world. After the advent of
Newtonian mechanics, science embraced a complete materialistic conception about
reality. Scientists started proposing hypotheses like abiogenesis (origin of
first life from accumulation of atoms and molecules) and the Big Bang theory
(the explosion theory for explaining the origin of universe). How the universe
came to be what it is now is a key philosophical question. The hypothesis that
it came from Nothing (as proposed by Stephen Hawking, among others), proves to
be dissembling, since the quantum vacuum can hardly be considered a void. In
modern science, it is generally assumed that matter existed before the universe
came to be. Modern science hypothesizes that the manifestation of life on Earth
is nothing but a mere increment in the complexity of matter — and hence is an
outcome of evolution of matter (chemical evolution) following the Big Bang.
After the manifestation of life, modern science believed that chemical
evolution transformed itself into biological evolution, which then had caused
the entire biodiversity on our planet. The ontological view of the organism as
a complex machine presumes life as just a chance occurrence, without any inner
purpose. This approach in science leaves no room for the subjective aspect of
consciousness in its attempt to know the world as the relationships among
forces, atoms, and molecules. On the other hand, the Vedāntic view states that
the origin of everything material and nonmaterial is sentient and absolute
(unconditioned). Thus, sentient life is primitive and reproductive of itself –
omne vivum ex vivo – life comes from life. This is the scientifically verified
law of experience. Life is essentially cognitive and conscious. And,
consciousness, which is fundamental, manifests itself in the gradational forms
of all sentient and insentient nature. In contrast to the idea of objective
evolution of bodies, as envisioned by Darwin and followers, Vedānta advocates
the idea of subjective evolution of consciousness as the developing principle
of the world. In this paper, an attempt has been made to highlight a few
relevant developments supporting a sentient view of life in scientific research,
which has caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of life and its origin.
Keywords
artificial intelligence, brain, consciousness, cell sentience,
Darwinism, machine, mind, origin of life,
organism, teleology
Introduction
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
Following a reductionist approach, there is a
general consensus among biologists that the body of an animal is being held up
by muscles, bones, tendons, and so on. However, despite the presence of these
anatomical parts, without consciousness, the body will collapse on the ground.
Hence, consciousness is a force within the body and only when it is conscious
it will stand up and perform its usual activities. The moment consciousness
leaves, the body collapses. The concept of awareness (an activity of consciousness)
is of major interest for anaesthesiologists, and in this branch of science, it
is believed that unconsciousness brings the forgetfulness of pain. However,
when patients undergo deep ether anesthesia, on recovery, some could not recall
their surgery or the discussion, but some develop new psychological symptoms.
In a while, after full recovery and under hypnosis, it is found that some
patients recall the spoken word, identify speech, and interpret meaning. In
some cases it may lead to life-threatening psychological trauma.1RIDcit0001 In other words, in a living body, it
is not just the molecules, bones, tissues and so forth that are all in all. The
body has a foundation upon consciousness.2RIDcit0002
By metaphorically assuming an organism as a
machine, biologists try to come to terms with many of its properties and
features. Following this approach, biologists have only made an attempt to
discover the physical properties and chemical processes of different
biomolecules present within the body of a living organism. Such mechanical
investigations of living organisms have always failed to provide any successful
mechanical explanations of living organisms. Therefore, such a reductionistic
analysis is just a pretension to study life, but in actuality it only deals
with the study of dead matter (abiology). As we know very well, “an organism is
something which the scientific method cannot deal with; it is a hard, round,
smooth nut, which experimental analysis can neither crack nor lever open at any
point. As soon as a hole is made in it, it explodes like a Prince Rupert drop
and vanishes away.”3RIDcit0003
Noble prize winner, Szent-Györgyi also brilliantly presented the outcome of the
mechanistic view of an organism:
“As scientists attempt to understand a living system,
they move down from dimension to dimension, from one level of complexity to the
next lower level. I followed this course in my own studies. I went from anatomy
to the study of tissues, then to electron microscopy and chemistry, and finally
to quantum mechanics. This downward journey through the scale of dimensions has
its irony, for in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and
electrons, which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line life has run out
through my fingers. So, in my old age, I am now retracing my steps, trying to
fight my way back.”4RIDcit0004
Traditionally, in both eastern and western
philosophy, life is understood as a cognitive or sentient principle. Sentience
cannot be manufactured artificially by any noble mechanical and chemical
arrangement of dead atoms and molecules. In the ancient eastern philosophy
based on the Vedāntic or Bhagavat paradigm, for example, the invocation of Śrī Īśopanisad
provides the concept of ‘Organic Wholism’:5RIDcit0005
“oḿ pūrnam adah pūrnam idaḿ pūrnāt pūrnam udacyate pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya pūrnam
evāvaśisyate – The ‘Organic Whole’ produces ‘organic wholes’. An ‘organic
whole’ cannot arise from parts that have to be assembled. That process can only
produce inorganic, mechanical or chemical processes, not living organisms.” A
similar conclusion was made by Rudolph Virchow in 1858, “omnis cellula e
cellula” (“every cell comes from a cell”).6RIDcit0006
In 1864, Louis Pasteur also demonstrated that life cannot arise from non-life
(abiogenesis is impossible) and with experimental evidence, established the
theory of biogenesis: Omne vivum ex vivo – Life comes from Life. The zygote to
adult embryonic development of every species also follows a fixed unique
blueprint leading to the production of an adult organism of that particular
species. Driesch explained this in a sequence of results where embryological
growth progressed by the interactions of the nucleus and cytoplasm:
“Insofar as it contains a nucleus, every cell,
during development, carries the totality of all primordia; insofar as it
contains a specific cytoplasmic cell body, it is specifically enabled by this
to respond to specific effects only. When nuclear material is activated, then,
under its guidance, the cytoplasm of its cell that had first influenced the
nucleus is in turn changed, and thus the basis is established for a new
elementary process, which itself is not only the result but also a cause”.7RIDcit0007
This spectacular realization of the concept of
nuclear-cytoplasmic interaction and nuclear equivalence finally forced Driesch
to reject the vision of the living organism as a physical machine. Examining
natural history, researchers have also reported that many living organisms
never evolved into different novel anatomical structures; rather, they
continued unaltered, even over a period of hundreds of millions of years.8RIDcit0008 This non-changing aspect of an
organism is known as stasis in the fossil record. In molecular genetics,
organisms deliberately and aggressively act to correct or destroy random
mutational changes.9RIDcit0009
Many similar observations in the literature establish that species preservation
is a natural characteristic of life. Life's ability to preserve its own species
offers a significant challenge to Darwinian gradualism. Living organisms
exhibit many such overtly noticeable goal-oriented or teleological activities
(self-determination, self-formation, self-preservation, self-reproduction,
self-restitution and so on), which make them distinct from insentient mechanical
and chemical systems. Darwin's Origin of Species invokes natural selection to
explain the goal-driven activities of the living organisms, but insists that
random mutations are exclusively responsible for the gradual but steady
appearance of more complicated organisms. This irrational inability to
scientifically explain how novel body types arise in study of life and its
evolution is the major deficiency of Darwinism.10RIDcit0010 Despite that, right from mid 19th
century to the last few decades of 20th century, biology witnessed a complete
dominance of this Darwin-imposed mechanistic insentient picture for sentient
living organism. Such an incorrect representation of life (mechanistic
insentient picture for sentient living organism) can be called abiology. On the
other hand, as we will discuss in this paper, 21st century biology strongly
presents the case for the sentient nature of all living organisms, thus
rejecting any major role for Darwinian objective evolution and trying to
understand the evolution of sentience. The present article is an attempt to
elaborate how earlier ruled out concepts of genuine biology have been again
substantiated by empirical evidence.
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
In the seventeenth century, the French
philosopher René Descartes claimed that only the human 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.”11RIDcit0011 In Introduction to Animal Rights,
Gary Francione describes the anticipated consequences of this Cartesian view.
“Descartes and his followers performed
experiments in which they nailed animals by their paws onto boards and cut them
open to reveal their beating hearts. They burned, scalded, and mutilated
animals in every conceivable manner. When the animals reacted as though they
were suffering pain, Descartes dismissed the reaction as no different from the
sound of a machine that was functioning improperly. A crying dog, Descartes
maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil.”12RIDcit0012
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 such a line of thought, 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 an
attractive alternative. The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in Non-Human
Animals was publicly proclaimed and signed by leading scientists at the First
Annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference in 2012.13RIDcit0013 Moreover, Anthony J. Trewavas and
František Baluška state that “consciousness in its many forms could well be
ubiquitous, even down to the simplest of organisms.”14RIDcit0014 They discuss 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 pioneer in the study of bacterial
intelligence and social behaviors of bacteria. Ben-Jacob has stated that all
organisms, and even 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.15RIDcit0015 He then proposed that by acting
together, bacteria can perform this most elementary cognitive function more
efficiently, as can be illustrated by their cooperative behavior. The
fundamental (primitive) elements of cognition in such systems include
interpretation of (chemical) messages, discrimination between internal and
external information, and some self versus non-self distinction (peers and cheaters).15RIDcit0015 Unicellular organisms display
learning, memory, anticipation, risk management, and other aspects of cognitive
behavior.16RIDcit0016
Therefore, strong evidence from cellular biology is forcing the biologists to
accept that even the smallest cells are sentient beings.17RIDcit0017
Individual Cell Sentience in Each
Cell of Multicellular Organisms
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
We must note that not only the unicellular
organisms display cognitive behavior, but that even individual cells in the
multicellular organisms exhibit individual cognitive behavior. Gametes of the multicellular
living entities display sentient-like cell-cell communication and chemotaxis.18RIDcit0018 Sperm cells and oocytes use several
cognitive transmitters.19RIDcit0019
Even plant cells have the sensory perceptions and the ability to integrate
these multiple sensory perceptions into adaptive actions.20RIDcit0020 The plant cells and neurons in other
multicellular organisms produce sentient action potentials.21RIDcit0021 Root cells of plants exhibit
sentient features at the transition zone interpolated between the apical
meristem and elongation region.22RIDcit0022
There is also ample empirical evidence that
establishes cell sentience from the perspective of cell functions. Cells can
cognitively read their environment, analyze the received information and then
execute the necessary action to continue their survival.23RIDcit0023 This coordinated cell action is
known as cell signaling, which substantiates the possibility that the cell too
has a mind. Living cells regulate practically every cell function, including
DNA synthesis, RNA synthesis, protein synthesis, cell division, cell
differentiation, morphogenesis, and neuroendocrine regulation.24RIDcit0024 Cells cognitively monitor different
cellular processes and if there is either a mistake or a damage, a cell can
detect the problem. A cell activates a checkpoint and stops the entire cycle
until all has been set accurately to further advance the cycle.25RIDcit0025 Cells execute programmed cell death
where they perform suicide by following an organized cascade of events, known
as apoptosis.26RIDcit0026
Cells of multicellular organism use various cell receptors for various
functions. To coordinate the functions in cell communities, they use the
integration-receptors which respond to information signals. In different
environments, using intercellular signaling molecules cells can select and
execute various essential actions.27RIDcit0027
Identity receptors are also known as self-receptors, or
histocompatibility-receptors, and they help the cells to have individual and
collective identity.28RIDcit0028
Therefore, they help the cellular communities to collectively respond to a
central command – and are used by the immune system in the multicellular
organisms to discriminate the self from the invader.
We should not be under the misconception that
biologists are the only ones with a monopoly on the study and understanding of
life. In this regard, Schrödinger can be an inspiration for all. Although a
quantum physicist and, not a biologist, Schrödinger in 1944 wrote a classic
monograph entitled, What is life?29RIDcit0029
The structure of the material carrier of information from one life form to
another (genetic information) and living organisms feeding upon their negative
entropy are the 2 well known ideas of Schrödinger in What is life? In this
essay and some other works, Schrödinger also developed his thoughts on the
nature of consciousness and Self, specifically from a Vedāntic perspective.
Quoting Vedānta, Schrödinger was mainly trying to explain that consciousness is
only one, singular, identifiable with its universal source (Brahman) and he
believed that the perceived spatial and temporal plurality of consciousness is
merely an appearance or illusion (māyā). However, it is a common misconception
that is found among the monists (Sripad Adi Shankaracharya's Kevala Advaita or
Māyāvādā philosophy) in Indian Vedāntic tradition. The verse 2.12,30,31RIDcit0030 cit0031 from Śrīmad
Bhagavad-gīta completely refutes the idea of singularity of consciousness,
where Bhagavān Sri Krishna says to Arjuna: “na tv evāhaḿ jātu nāsaḿ na tvaḿ
neme janādhipāh na caiva na bhaviṣyāmah sarve vayam atah param – Never was
there a time when you, I or all these kings did not exist, just as we exist in
the present, so have we existed in the past, so shall we continue to exist in
the future.” Therefore, according to the Vedāntic view, the plurality of
individuals is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed in other Vedic sources (Kaṭha
Upaniṣad 2.2.13 says: nityo nityānāḿ cetanaś cetanānām – We are eternal, we are
many, and Supreme Absolute is also eternal, but He is one) and by authentic
teachers like Sripad Ramanuja Acharya and other Vaiṣṇava Ācāryas. NPR also
reported in 2010, “there are 10 times more microbial cells on and in our
bodies than there are human cells. That means that we're 90 percent microbial
and 10 percent human…”32RIDcit0032
Apart from our own individuality, we must also accept the individualities of
all those microbes on and in our bodies. We cannot deny the individuality of
all those microbes, by stating that their individuality is mere illusion (māyā).
In the healthy body of a multicellular organism, every individual cell, despite
having its own individuality, is meant to work for the welfare of the whole
body. Similarly, Vedānta advocates that we are living in an ‘Organic Whole’ and
every individual unit of this whole is meant to dedicate itself for the
satisfaction of the Center – the ādi-puruṣa or primeval personal Absolute. In
contrast to Darwinism, symbiogenesis proclaims that life did not take over the
globe by competition, but by cooperation. In the body of an organism, there are
different organs like heart, kidneys, lungs and so on, which perform different
tasks to serve the function of the body as a whole. One organ does not try to
become another. In the similar manner, different living entities and also their
environment are related to each other like an organic whole. Evidence in
symbiotic exchanges confirms that the sphere of life is like a net, with the
different species representing the nodes of that net (network). If changes
occur in the network as a whole, then the various nodes (species) change
accordingly, to maintain the harmony of the network of life. This viewpoint is
completely ignored by many modern evolutionists.
Cell Sentience Challenges
Neo-Darwinism
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
In his book, Evolution: A View from the 21st
Century,33RIDcit0033
James A. Shapiro, Professor in the 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 dismisses the
traditional Neo-Darwinian evolution theory that is widely accepted by
biologists. In Darwinism, organisms are often assumed as optimally designed
machines blindly engineered by natural selection. However, based on cell
cognition, Shapiro challenges that view:
“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.” (Page 145 in).33RIDcit0033
In recent time Neo-Darwinian evolution theory
is facing several challenges from various corners34,35RIDcit0034 cit0035 and hence, it is
the right time to find the proper alternative explanation for biological
evolution, based on cognitive principles.
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
Even though 21st century biology has
established that from humans 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. Often referred to as the Turing test, an imitation game proposed by
Alan Turing in 1950, is taken as the litmus test of machine intelligence in
Strong AI. In this test, an interrogator asks questions to a human being and a
machine, and if the interrogator fails to distinguish between human and
machine, then the machine is declared as intelligent.36RIDcit0036 Searle used the Chinese Room
argument to establish that the Turing test is not the proper means to assess
machine intelligence.37RIDcit0037
In a Chinese room, a man who does not understand Chinese language can translate
the incoming and outgoing messages in Chinese by simply executing pattern
replacements following the rules. Chinese observers outside the room may feel
that whatever is in the room passes the Turing test by communicating in
Chinese, but in reality the man in the room has no real understanding about the
meaning of that conversation. In this way Searle explained that a machine may
pass the Turing test but this does not guarantee that it has developed
thinking, understanding or the ability to grasp meaning. On the other hand,
certain living organisms have the ability to grasp meaning and such ability cannot
be produced in machines by any computer program.
With the ample empirical evidence and emphasis
of the 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) has also explained the non-algorithmic nature of mind, in
his book The Emperor's New Mind.38RIDcit0038
In his book, he continually highlights that mental processes are intrinsically
more potent than computational processes. Penrose asks “Can an 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.
Consciousness Beyond Computational
Modeling
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
The “identity theory” explains that the states
and processes of the mind are alike states and processes of the brain.
Therefore, scientists and philosophers following the concept of identity theory
believe that the brain secretes thought like the liver secretes bile.39RIDcit0039 However, despite all their knowledge
on the brain scientists still do not know how the neural correlates coalesce to
produce subjective experiences. Like geneticists, neurologists also presume
that there is a “neural code”40RIDcit0040
that represents the mind of the organism and helps the brain managing synaptic
modulation over wide areas of the cortex. However, neurologists do not know
whether coding is performed by individual neurons or by nervous system.41RIDcit0041 They believe that the complex brain
function is as simple as the operation of a man-made machine – robot – and
therefore they hope that in the future, they will be able to control living
organisms just like robots.42RIDcit0042
In the brain, coding occurs in context and hence, the meaning aspect should be
considered strictly in the context of the subject's behavior. An individual
living entity selects according to its behavior only those aspects of neural
firing that make sense for its behavior. Different qualitative and quantitative
stimulus attributes of sentient living organisms are represented by different
neural codes – and therefore, unlimitedly, many neural codes are necessary.
Apart from the behavior of organism whose brain is under study, interpretations
of neural action are also very much influenced by the brain states of the
neuroscientists. Eggermont explains this difficulty:
“The information encoded in a train of neural
action potentials is interpreted by higher order neurons and it is also
interpreted by the neuroscientist who designed and performed the experiments.
There need not be any correspondence between these two interpretations. The
interpretation by the neuroscientist, however, may be influenced by the ruling
paradigm in the particular field of research”.43RIDcit0043
Therefore, it is not clear whether any neural
code exists in reality, or whether it is only in the minds of neurologists. As
Erlich stated:
“Extensive investigation of the brain's
synaptic connectivity, the presumed material basis of cognition, has failed to
explain how the brain thinks. Further, the neural code that purportedly allows
the brain to coordinate synaptic modulation over wide areas of cortex has yet
to be found and may not exist.”44RIDcit0044
Code, by its meaning, is a predetermined
representation of information that is independent of the sender, receiver, and
mechanisms of transmission.45RIDcit0045
Influenced by the concept of neural coding and decoding, neurologists think the
brain as an information processing system. Tononi has tried to explain
consciousness with a theoretical framework, the “Integrated Information Theory
of Consciousness (IITC).”46RIDcit0046
Tononi thought that the human brain integrates information, and that is why it
produces conscious behavior. The foundation of Tononi's IITC is based on 2
thought experiments: (1) the generation of information and (2) the 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 his 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
humans (>10,000). However, the mere producing of more information than that
of a human nose cannot provide the artificial smell detectors the ability to
experience the smell the way humans do. Tononi explained that the major
difference between artificial detector and human experience is that in the case
of the 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. The 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 the case of human subjects, 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 a 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. The reductionistic view of
consciousness finds its limits here, because the changes in the memory caused
by the subject's experience are not localized on any one part of his/her brain.
Computation is reversible but cognition is not,47RIDcit0047 and that is why Maguire et al.48RIDcit0048 stated.
“[A] form of magic is going on in the brain,
which is beyond computational modeling.”
Conscious behavior is an outcome of integrated
information in the mind, and those conscious responses cannot be decomposed or
disintegrated into a set of causally independent parts. The failure to create
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’ – which distinguishes them from inanimate objects
– ‘matter’.
Self-Organization: Without a
Self!
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
To establish the difference between machine and
organism, Neil D Theise has mentioned in his article in Nature:
“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 machines. 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., 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.”49RIDcit0049
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 the Nobel Prize in Chemistry and he claimed that systems
significantly out of equilibrium – “dissipative structures” – tend to
spontaneously organize themselves. Prigogine cited the vortex (say a tornado in
thunderstorm) as an example of self-organization.50RIDcit0050 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 higher degree
of organization than is present in either of the air masses alone. Following
such analogies and examples of self ordering molecules during an influx of
energy, a few biologists have tried to explain the origin of highly complex
macromolecules essential for living systems. However, such analogies have
negligible bearing toward addressing the question of life, as Prigogine stated:
“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.”51RIDcit0051 Such simple analysis can never
address the complexity of even a simple living cell. Prigogine confirms 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.”52RIDcit0052
Even 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? 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. Therefore, even though it is named as
self-organization, this reductionistic concept has no ‘self’ at all. For the
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 the Vedāntic concept of Life among the scientists via
university outreach, seminars, conferences, publications and online
discussions. One of his statements is very much relevant in the present context
of self-organization:
“From the reader's perspective, a book is
composed of alphabetical letters; but the book itself did not originate from
these letters. Ultimately it is from the ideas of the author that the letters
of the book come to be. In the same way, the molecules of a biological organism
are the result, not the origin of life. This is the difference between the
order in which we come to know things (ordo cognoscendi) and the order in which
something comes to be (ordo essendi).”
Differences Between Organisms and
Artifacts: Living Organisms are Beyond Design
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
German philosopher Immanuel Kant explained the
concept of “natural teleology” or “natural purpose” or “natural end”
(Naturzweck).53RIDcit0053
To distinguish the living organisms from artifacts, Kant explained that for
both the cases, 2 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.”53RIDcit0053
In the 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 exist. In the case of the living organisms (Naturzweck) this condition is
satisfied in the form of 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.”53RIDcit0053
External forces are the unifying principle in an artifact, but, in the case of
a living organism, the unifying principle is sentience. Even though in both
artifacts and living organisms, the ends are determined by purpose (a cognitive
act), the difference is that in the case of artifacts, the purpose (designer)
is outside the system (external teleology), and in the case of a living
organism, the purpose is within (internal teleology). Following a linear logic
in the case of artifacts, 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.
Even though the attempt toward mechanization of
nature served as an important driving force behind the scientific revolution,
it also created an image of a clockwork universe set in motion by an
intelligent first cause. Such machine analogy is also applied to living
organisms. However, the view that a supernatural being, God,54RIDcit0054 is external to living organisms and
that He imposes form on matter from the outside (intelligent design) is also
reductionistic, and shows a logical fallacy. The logic of extrinsically
purposive systems (machines) cannot be applied to intrinsically purposive
systems (living organisms). The Vedāntic view offers a scientific alternative:
“‘Organic Wholes’ produces ‘organic wholes’ and an ‘organic whole’ cannot arise
from parts that have to be mechanically assembled. The process of externally
assembling parts can only produce inorganic, mechanical machines or chemical
processes, not living organisms.”5RIDcit0005
Empirical evidence shows that every living cell comes from a living cell and
there is no single evidence that shows a case where a living cell appears from
the external assembly/accumulation of biomolecules. The Vedāntic alternative is
that an immanent subjective process within a single cell zygote produces
varieties of cells that are necessary for different functions in the body of a
particular species. Vedānta advocates that different forms originate from the ādi-puruṣa
or primeval personal Absolute, and in the reflected material sphere, the
various species of life are subject to a developing principle of evolution of
consciousness.
Life (Naturzweck) also has a 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 the 2 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.”55RIDcit0055 In a living organism, the complex
biomolecules are not just there for the sake of each other, but they also
produce each other, maintain each other, and are dedicating units of an organic
whole. Therefore, unlike machines, the generation, properties, and functions of
the parts of an organism cannot be understood independently from the organism
as a whole. The empirical evidence in frontier biology also confirms Immanuel
Kant's statement: “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.”56RIDcit0056
For confirmation, in his book This is Biology, 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.”57RIDcit0057
Abiogenesis and the theory of evolution explain
that the first life came from the accumulation of inert matter and that biodiversity
is a result of random mutation and natural selection. Evolutionary theory and
the principles in biology are applied directly to behavior, and they avoid
psychological or cognitive level analysis. Both abiogenesis and evolution
theory are outcomes of mechanistic or reductionistic thinking and that is why
they cannot explain how organisms have cognitive features like thinking,
feeling and willing. These concepts also do not explain how matter developed
the 2 fundamental characteristics that life has (Naturzweck and bildende
Kraft). Therefore, both the origin and evolution of life must be rewritten on
the basis of sentience.
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic
View on Body, Consciousness and Soul
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
In biology, the predominant ontological view of
the organism is that of a complex machine programmed by its genetic software
and decomposable into its component mechanisms. However, through her work on
transposons, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock has established that genes are
not the foundational concept of life.58RIDcit0058
Crick predicted that if a single case of unknown transfers of the central dogma
is occurring in nature, then it would shake the foundations of biology.59RIDcit0059 Twenty first century biology
witnessed that the foundation of biology has been shaken hard, which put the
cell and the organism back to the center stage. There are no genomic or other
molecular units for life.60RIDcit0060
The genetic substance itself is a dynamic structure and functions as a
co-participating member in an organic whole. In contrast to Darwinism, 21st
century biology accepts that life is a totality of organism, environment and
nature.61RIDcit0061
It is a web of life and no organism can be considered in isolation. Continually
mounting evidence thoroughly challenges the common consensus that genes
determine living function.62RIDcit0062
Therefore, life must be considered from a different perspective in a call for a
new biology which, to us, will be assigning a fundamental role to consciousness
in order to account for its subject-object unity.63RIDcit0063 Biology must include higher concepts
like intelligence, mind, desire and freewill for studying what really
determines the organism and biodiversity.
The central tenet of Vedānta (also known as Vedānta-sūtra)
is that everything is dependent upon an original sentient/conscious foundation
or self-knowing absolute truth. The first aphorism of Vedānta-sūtra states that
under the guidance of a spiritually realized being, we must inquire into our
true nature as spirit (athāto brahma jijñāsā). The second aphorism of Vedānta-sūtra
provides the initial indication of how to begin this inquiry (janmādy asya
yatah). Janma means birth, asya refers to everything (entire cosmos which
includes both matter and life) and yatah means ‘from whom’. Therefore, to begin
the inquiry into our true nature, we must first inquire into the original
source of everything. Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is considered as a natural
supplementary commentary on the Vedānta-sūtra. The first verse of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam
elaborated the commentary of the second aphorism of Vedānta-sūtra (janmādy yato
ńvayād itarataś cārthesv abhijñah svarāt). “Janmādy asya yatah” – the origin of
everything is “abhijñah svarāt” – the unitary Supreme Cognizant Being. This Vedāntic
explanation that unitary Supreme Cognizant Being is the source of everything is
founded on 2 scientifically verifiable axiomatic facts: (1) Life comes from
Life, and (2) Matter comes from Life. Consciousness arises from consciousness,
or life comes from life. Where there is life there is consciousness.
Consciousness does not originate from that which is unconscious or impersonal,
and life is not a product of insentient matter. The conception that life comes
from life (biogenesis) is the only scientific idea that has ever been verified
by experiment and observation. The second axiomatic fact ‘Matter comes from
Life’ is apparently observable in nature. Every species produces their own
chemicals necessary within their bodies. ‘Life comes from Life’, and ‘Matter
comes from Life’ are 2 scientifically observable deductions from Vedānta. On
the other hand, materialism (life originates from matter) is an unverified
ideological presupposition that has no scientific or observation-based evidence
to support it.
Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā (BG) is one of the most
important books in Indian philosophy and religion. BG in a capsule form
describes the entire Vedāntic philosophy right from the understanding of the
soul (ātman) to the understanding of the ultimate purpose of life. In BG30,31RIDcit0030 cit0031 13.34 it is
written: “yathā prakāśayaty ekah krtsnaḿ lokam imaḿ ravih ksetraḿ ksetrī tathā
krtsnaḿ prakāśayati bhārata – O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates
all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate
the entire body by consciousness.” Therefore, according to BG, consciousness is
the inferential proof or symptom of existence of the soul (ātman) or the living
entity. Consciousness is absolutely necessary for the living body to be what it
is and to function as it does. We can all experience consciousness and
according to BG the soul (ātman) is the seat or the origin of consciousness.
According to Vedānta, there are 2 types of consciousness (finite and infinite
consciousness) that co-exist in the body of a living organism. We can witness
voluntary functions (the action that are apparently under the control of our
mind) and involuntary functions in the living organisms. The things that we
appear to control are due to our consciousness coming from our soul (ātman) and
that which are not in our control (involuntary functions: complex cellular
functions, heart beats, autonomous signals, and so on) are controlled by higher
consciousness coming from Paramātma (super soul). Hence, Paramātma (source of
infinite consciousness) is also known as the ground or sustainer of the ātman
(finite consciousness).
There are terms in science that we cannot
perceive directly by our senses. We cannot taste, smell, touch, see and hear
entities like force, energy, electron, quarks, and so on. Scientists explain to
us many such terms using inference and we accept them as scientific proof. When
an apple falls down from a tree, we infer that there is a gravitational force
that pulled the apple down. We never ask for a direct observation of the
gravitational force itself. Similarly, although scientists cannot sensually
perceive the soul (ātman), still they can infer its existence just from the
presence of consciousness in all biological systems. As the presence of the sun
can be inferred from the sunlight, similarly existence of the soul (ātman) can
also be understood from the presence of the different varieties of
consciousness in various living organisms. Doctors can keep patients survive on
ventilators and even they can replace the heart with an artificial heart
running with a battery. Sometimes, it is possible to keep an organism
functioning by electrical equipment outside the body, but the organism is
unconscious – showing no EEG activity, in a vegetative state. Remove the
equipment and the organism cannot maintain even that function. Then, what is
supplying the organism's energy for functioning when the machines are
disconnected and it has to function independently? Vedāntic scriptures explain
it is the soul (ātman) that does all the work of the machines in maintaining
the organism's functioning, plus supplying the order and sentient awareness
within the body. We can supply the energy by some machines to maintain the body
but we cannot make a body conscious with those machines.
According to Vedānta, the soul (ātman)
possesses the qualities of sat, cit and ānanda. All life exhibits these same
qualities. Every living organism wants to maintain its life forever (sat) and
is willing to engage in the struggle for existence until it is forced by the
laws of material nature to succumb to physical death of the body. The fact that
life goes on generation after generation for thousands or millions of years is
not something we would expect in chemical or physical material processes. It is
sentient or conscious (cit) and seeks knowledge in the human form. And all life
seeks fulfillment (ānanda) through nutrition, and various other forms according
to the spiritual development of the various qualities of the soul (ātman)
within the different bodies. All these different symptoms give evidence for the
existence of the spiritual soul (ātman), for they are certainly not the
qualities of matter. Matter, as it is known in modern science in terms of
physical and chemical properties, does not have sentience or consciousness.
Even though the same chemicals are present in the dead body as in the living
one, we do not find life or sentient quality in a dead body or a dead cell.
Even though the same biochemicals are present in both the cases, the complex
biochemical reactions that occur in a living cell do not take place in a dead
cell. To provide a valid explanation to these observations, the soul (ātman)
hypothesis certainly offers a good possibility, because according to BG, the
soul (ātman) does have the property of consciousness. Modern science has not
yet approached that area of knowledge and only focused its studies on
insentient matter. Due to a gross negligence to the area of sentient science,
modern science finds itself at an impasse when it tries to understand biology,
which deals with mind or consciousness.
Vedānta holds that different forms (species)
are original archetypes that accommodate different varieties of consciousness
through which the transmigration of the soul (ātman) takes place on the basis
of the evolution of consciousness. The body is a biological illusion of the
consciousness of the soul (ātman) and from an amoeba to a human being, all the
different varieties of forms are representations of different stages of
conditioned consciousness. Following an endless cycle of birth and death
(‘transmigration of the soul’ or Metempsychosis in Greek), the soul (ātman)
keeps on wandering in different grades of conditioned states of consciousness
(subjective evolution of consciousness) by obtaining a body suitable to that
consciousness until it attains the pure consciousness.
Unless a designer or an external agent
interferes, a machine always consists of the same material stuff. Unlike a
machine, a living organism displays a transitional material identity. The
constituent materials of the body of the living organism are under constant change,
yet the organization of the whole and its identity remain. The body of a living
organism is in a state of continuous flux in which there is creation,
maintenance (replacement) and destruction of its constituent material stuff by
the processes of anabolism, metabolism and catabolism. Dr. Jonas Frisén, a stem
cell biologist at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm used carbon dating to
estimate the age of human cells.64RIDcit0064
He used Carbon dating method on tissues instead of individual cells, because a
single cell does not have enough 14C
to signal its age. Scientists believe that the DNA is stable after a cell has
gone through its last cell division. Therefore, they use 14C
level on the DNA as a date mark for when a cell was born.65RIDcit0065 In his experiments, Jonas Frisén
used the assumption that most molecules in a cell are continually being changed
but the DNA is not. Dr. Frisén's experimental data suggested that our body is
many years younger than our age – for instance, a middle aged person's body may
be just 7-10 years old or less.66RIDcit0066
As the body is under constant replenishment, Vedānta explains that bodily
identity of self is illusory. Verse 2.13 of BG explains that there is soul
within the body, which is unaffected by the bodily changes:
dehino 'smin yathā dehe kaumāraḿ yauvanaḿ jarātathā
dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati
Translation: As the embodied soul continuously
passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly
passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by
such a change.
Our body was in the state of a single cell
zygote when it first came into existence and by miraculous embryological
development it has acquired a child body. By several changes, it has acquired
its present state and it will further change to acquire its future state.
Therefore, our body is in a constant state of flux, like a river. The Vedāntic
view of the principle of reincarnation (metempsychosis) can be found in its
nascent form in the changing of our body, from the child body, to the youth
body, to the old body. We can scientifically observe that our body is already
changing several times in our lifetime itself, and in a similar manner at the
time of death, the eternal soul (ātman) will go to another body under certain
conditions.
According to Sańkhya philosophy, there are 2
types of bodies: (1) Sthūla-deha: The gross body–the body that can be sensed by
hearing, smelling, tasting, seeing, and touching, and (2) Sūkṣma-deha: The
subtle body (within the gross body) – mind (manasā), intelligence (buddhi) and
false ego (ahańkāra). In the gross body, the senses are primary and if they are
removed, no world is apparent to us. Above the senses is the mind (manasā) and
it is the supreme ruler of the senses. If we are not mindful of the sense
objects, then even though something is moving in front of our eyes we cannot
see it. The mind basically deals with acceptance (sańkalpa) and rejection
(vikalpaa)–the faculty of understanding, or holding thoughts in their
separation/distinction as either/or. And, above the mind is the teleological
reason or intelligence (buddhi), which is the inferential faculty determining
if/then. The mind can determine something, but it is the intelligence that
helps an individual to come to a decision to accept something or not. The false
ego (ahańkāra) is the identification of the self with the body and the bodily
identities (nation, cast, color, creed and so on). The mind, intelligence, ego
are dependent on the soul (ātman). The soul (ātman) consciously experiences and
interacts with the gross matter through a subtle body (mind, intelligence and
false ego).
BG states that at the time of death, the soul (ātman)
leaves the gross body, but it does not leave the subtle body. The transmigration
of the soul (ātman) is described in BG 8.6: yaṁ yaṁ vāpi smaran bhāvaṁ tyajaty
ante kalevaram taṁ tam evaiti kaunteya sadā tad-bhāva-bhāvitaḥ – “The soul (ātman)
obtains a body in next life based on the consciousness in which it left the
previous body.”
Considering a machine analogy of the living
organism, abiogenesis and evolution theory in biology do not include these
subtle elements when it studies living organisms. It excludes mind,
intelligence and false ego. Obviously, consciousness is untouched in those
theories. Vedāntic literature explains that wherever life is present, the soul
(ātman) is there within and following the ‘laws of karma’ the soul (ātman) in
human body may obtain bodies of nonhuman species and vice versa. By
advancement, the soul (ātman) can obtain the human form, and by degradation it
can also go back to other forms of life. The soul (ātman) is endowed with
freewill and by misutilizing freewill, a soul (ātman) may do many misdeeds. The
acquired reactions from those misdeeds are known as karmic reactions. ‘Laws of
karma’ check the freewill of the soul (ātman) by providing new bodies and
throwing into different suffering conditions. This ancient theory of evolution
is based on the subjective evolution of consciousness67RIDcit0067 and the Darwinian objective
evolution theory of bodies is a perverted representation of this ancient
wisdom. In Darwinism, evolution means transformation of bodies, and in Vedāntic
view evolution means transformation of consciousness. Twenty first century biology
also teaches us that we should not inflict our ideas on nature; let nature
reveal herself to us. Life and its evolution cannot be understood by imposing
simplistic Darwinian mechanistic reductionism on sentient biological systems.
Evidence is forcing biologists to go beyond physics and chemistry to properly
comprehend the science of consciousness.
Conclusions
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
In a living cell proteins can distinctively
catalyze a chemical reaction or identify an antigen not only because their
amino acids are arranged in a particular manner, but also because their
3-dimensional structure and function are controlled by sentient living cell.
Cell functioning cannot be explained by reducing it to any single molecule
like, DNA, RNA or Protein. The reductionistic view in biology finds its limits
and biology should shift its lens from the parts to the whole.
Science has witnessed that biology has 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, while on the other hand, some try to see it as computational
result. However, none of these explanations include the sensory feature of how
cells act. All these developments give the impression that cells possess 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 has stated: “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”.(Page 24 in33RIDcit0033)
Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living
organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.
The individual cells in the multicellular
organisms are also individually cognitive entities.
The scientific confirmation of the existence of
consciousness in unicellular organisms and plants certainly establishes that
the brain is not the source of consciousness. Several decades back, research in
medical science has also proven that the brain is not the source of
consciousness. In 1970, Robert White and his team successfully transferred the
head of a rhesus monkey to the headless body of another monkey. The monkey
survived for 8 days.68RIDcit0068
Researchers are also attempting to perform the same scenario with human beings.69RIDcit0069 It is reported that if a human head
has been detached under controlled conditions, it must be reconnected to the
circulatory flow of other person's body (which is conscious or living) within
one hour.70RIDcit0070
Therefore, brain-based analysis for understanding consciousness (neuronal
analysis) does not have very bright prospects.
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. Cells can sustain an enucleation
operation (the operation in which a cell's nucleus is removed). In fact, cells
are found to be more robust toward brain removal than multicellular organisms.
It has been reported that enucleated cells continue to survive and display a
regulated control of their biological processes for up to 3 months.71,72RIDcit0071 cit0072 Therefore, for
both single-cell and also multicellular organisms, the brain is not the source
of consciousness.
The information approach and self-organization
principles are not sufficient to explain life and its origin.
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.
The material origin of life and objective
evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome. Biologists
should instead find the proper tools to explain the origin and evolution of
life from the realm of sentience.
Our attitude is shaped by the way our education
has conditioned us to think about the world. To teach that Man is simply an
enclosed membrane of chemicals affects how people think about themselves as
spiritual beings, and thus it influences the way they think about such concerns
as abortion, euthanasia, bioethics in research and medicine, cloning, genetic
modification of food, animal rights, and so on. The Vedāntic scholars,
Aristotle, Kant (using the argument of teleology) and Hegel have all claimed
that biological systems (organisms) are distinct from inanimate objects
(mechanical and chemical systems). Purpose and meaning are inseparable aspects
of life, similarly as consciousness. We cannot expect those in dead molecules.
We do not give any moral and ethical importance to an accumulation of dead
molecules, but such a consideration is a must for 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 toward the ancient Eastern Vedāntic
philosophical concept of ātman, Aristotle's concept of Soul, and Hegel's
explanation of the Concept.
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts
of Interest
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
No potential conflicts of interest were
disclosed.
Acknowledgments
The author's Diksha Gurudev Srila Bhaktisvarupa
Damodara Maharaja (Dr. T.D. Singh, Founding Director – Bhaktivedanta Institute)
inspired him to work on the most fundamental topics in science such as ‘Origin
of Matter and Life’, ‘Origin of Universe’, and ‘Consciousness’. The author
sincerely acknowledges the blessings and guidance of his Siksha Gurudev Sripad
Bhakti Madhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. toward developing the concepts to prepare
this paper. He is also thankful for valuable inputs of Sripad Bhakti Vijnana
Muni Maharaja, Ph.D. (President, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute) and Samuel
Buchoul during the preparation of this paper. Sincere thanks also to the
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal and the reviewers for their valuable comments
and suggestions toward the improvement of the presentation of this paper.
Funding
Jump to section
Introduction
Ubiquity of Consciousness
Individual Cell Sentience in Each Cell of...
Cell Sentience Challenges Neo-Darwinism
What Algorithms Cannot Do
Consciousness Beyond Computational Modeling
Self-Organization: Without a Self!
Differences Between Organisms and...
A Brief Introduction to Vedāntic View on Body,...
Conclusions
Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest
Funding
This work is partially supported by: Prof.
Kanchan Chowdhury, Head, Cryogenic Engineering Center, Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur, India; Dr. Ashok K. Mishra, Assistant Professor, Glenn
Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, USA; Bharath Cherukuri,
Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Research Institute, Chennai, India;
Yasheswari Didi, Leiden, Netherlands; Pradyumna Prabhu, Mumbai, India; Sandeep
Krishna Prabhu & Damayanti Didi, Hyderabad, India.
References
1. Levinson BW. States of awareness during
anaesthesia. British J Anaesthesia 1965; 37:544-6;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/37.7.544 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
2. Maturana HR. Biology of cognition. In
Autopoeisis and cognition (eds Maturana HR, Varela FJ), Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Reidel, 1970; 1-58
3. Needhma J. The skeptical biologist. London:
Chatto & Windus, 1929; page 82
4. Szent-Györgyi A. What is life? In the
Physical basis of life. Del Mar, CA: CRM Books, 1972; page 5
5. Prabhupada ACBS. Śrī Īśopanisad.
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1969
6. Tan SY, Brown J. Rudolph Virchow
(1821–1902): Pope of pathology. Singapore Med J 2006; 47:567-78; PMID:16810425 [PubMed]
7. Driesch H. Analytische Theorie de
organischen Entwicklung. W Engelmann, Leipzig 1894 [CrossRef]
8. Williamson PG. Morphological stasis and
developmental constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism. Nature 1981;
294:214; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/294214a0 [CrossRef],
[Web of Science
®]
9. Fijalkowska IJ, Schaaper RM, Jonczyk P. DNA
replication fidelity in Escherichia coli: a multi-DNA polymerase affair. FEMS
Microbiol Rev 2012; 36(6):1105-21; PMID:22404288;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00338.x [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
10. Wagner GP, Vincent JL. Evolutionary
novelties. Current Biol 2010; 20:R48-52;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.010 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
11. Proctor HS, Carder G, Cornish AR. Searching
for animal sentience: A systematic review of the scientific literature. Animals
2013; 2:882-906; http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani3030882 [CrossRef]
12. Francione G. Introduction to animal rights:
Your child or the dog? Temple University Press, 2000
13. The First Annual Francis Crick Memorial
Conference: http://fcmconference.org
14. Trewavas AJ, Baluška F. The ubiquity of
consciousness: The ubiquity of consciousness, cognition and intelligence in
life. EMBO Rep 2011; 12:1221-5; PMID:22094270;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.218 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
15. Ben-Jacob E, Shapira Y, Tauber AI. Seeking
the foundations of cognition in bacteria: from Schrödinger's negative entropy
to latent information. Physica A 2006; 359:495-524;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2005.05.096 [CrossRef],
[Web of Science
®]
16. Baluška F, Mancuso S. Deep evolutionary
origins of neurobiology. Communicative Integrative Biol 2009; 2(1):60-5;
http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cib.2.1.7620 [Taylor &
Francis Online], [PubMed]
17. Shapiro JA. Bacteria are small but not
stupid: cognition, natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology. Stud
Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 2007; 38:807-19;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.09.010 [CrossRef],
[PubMed]
18. Hu JH, Yang N, Ma YH, Jiang J, Zhang JF,
Fei J, Guo LH. Identification of glutamate receptors and transporters in mouse
and human sperm. J Andr 2004; 25:140-6 [PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
19. Bray C, Son JH, Kumar P, Meizel S. Mice
deficient in CHRNA7, a subunit of the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, produce
sperm with impaired motility. Biol Repr 2005; 73:807-14;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.105.042184 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
20. Trewavas A. Response to Alpi et al.:
Plant neurobiology – all metaphors have value. Trends Plant Sci 2007; 12:231-3;
PMID:17499006; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2007.04.006 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
21. Fromm J, Lautner S. Electrical signals and
their physiological significance in plants. Plant Cell Environ 2007; 30:249-57;
PMID:17263772; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01614.x [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
22. Baluška F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, Barlow
PW. Root apices as plant command centres: The unique brain-like status of the
root apex transition zone. Biologia 2004; 59:9-14
23. Brandman O, Ferrell JE, Li R, Meyer, T.
Interlinked fast and slow positive feedback loops drive reliable cell
decisions. Science 2005; 310:496-8; PMID:16239477;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1113834 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
24. Hartwell LH. Twenty-five years of cell
cycle genetics. Genetics 1991; 129:975-80; PMID:1783298 [PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
25. McAdams HH, Shapiro L. System-level design
of bacterial cell cycle control. FEBS Lett 2009; 583:3984-91; PMID:19766635;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2009.09.030 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
26. Bursch W. The autophagosomal-lysosomal
compartment in programmed cell death. Cell Death Differ 2001; 8:569-81;
PMID:11536007; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4400852 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
27. Lane N. Marine microbiology: origins of
death. Nature 2008; 453:583-5; PMID:18509414; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/453583a
[CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
28. Langman RE. Cell-mediated immunity and the
major histocompatibility complex. Rev Physiol Biochem Pharmacol 1978; 81:1-37;
PMID:417392; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0034090 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
29. Schrödinger E. What is life? Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1944
30. Sridhar BR. Śrīmad Bhagavad-gītā: The
hidden treasure of the sweet Absolute. Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math 2006
31. Prabhupada ACBS. Bhagavad-gītā as it is.
Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1972
32. Bacterial bonanza: Microbes keep us alive.
NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129862107
Accessed 07 July 2015
33. Shapiro JA. Evolution: A view from the 21st
century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011
34. Raoult D, Koonin EV. Microbial genomics
challenge Darwin. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2012; 2:127; PMID:23091803;
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2012.00127 [CrossRef],
[Web of Science
®]
35. Kuhn JA. Dissecting Darwinism. Proc Bayl
Univ Med Cent 2012; 25:41-7; PMID:22275784 [PubMed]
36. Turing AM. Computing machinery and
intelligence. Mind 1950; LIX(236)
37. Searle JR. Minds, brains, and programs. The
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1980, 3:417-57; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
[CrossRef],
[Web of Science
®]
38. Penrose R. The emperor's new mind. Oxford
University Press, 1989
39. Place UT. Is consciousness a brain process?
Brit J Psychol 1956; 47:44-50; PMID:13304279;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1956.tb00560.x [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
40. Bialek W, Rieke F, de Ruyter van Steveninck
RR, Warland D. Reading a neural code. Science 1991; 252:1854-7; PMID:2063199;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2063199 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
41. Barlow H. The neuron doctrine in
perception. In The Cognitive Neurosciences, Ed Gazzaniga MS, MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA, 1995; 415-35
42. Delgado JMR. Physical control of the mind.
Toward a psychocivilized society. Harper and Row, New York, 1969
43. Eggermont JJ. Is there a neural code?
Neuroscience Biobehavioral Rev 1998; 22:355-70; PMID:9579325;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(97)00021-3 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
44. Erlich VM. Cognition without a neural code:
How a folded cortex might think by harmonizing its own electromagnetic fields.
Einstein J Biol Medicine 2011; 27(1):34-47
45. Kreiman G. Neural coding: computational and
biophysical perspectives. Phys Life Rev 2004; 1:71-102; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2004.06.001
[CrossRef]
46. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated
information: a provisional manifesto. Biol Bull 2008; 215:216-42;
PMID:19098144; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25470707 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
47. Bringsjord S, Zenzen M. Cognition is not
computation: The argument from irreversibility. Synthese 1997; 113:285-320;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005019131238 [CrossRef],
[Web of Science
®]
48. Maguire P, Moser P, Maguire R, Griffith V.
Is consciousness computable? Quantifying integrated information using
algorithmic information theory. In: Bello P, Guarini M, McShane M, Scassellati
B (eds), Proc 36th Ann Conf Cogn Sci Soc. Cognitive Science Society, Austin,
TX, 2014
49. Theise ND. Assessing the potential of
induced liver regeneration. Nat Med 2013; 19:1096-7; PMID:24013747;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.3325 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
50. Progogine I. The end of certainity. The
Free Press, New York, 1996; page 3
51. Progogine I. The end of certainity. The
Free Press, New York, 1996; page 71
52. Prigogine I, Stengers I. Order out of
chaos. New York, Bantam Books, 1984; page 175
53. Ginsborg H. The normativity of nature:
Essays on Kant's critique of judgement. Oxford University Press, 2015; page 318
54. Scott EC, Matzke NJ. Biological design in
science classrooms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104(Suppl 1):8669-76;
PMID:17494747; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701505104 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
55. Ginsborg H. The normativity of nature:
Essays on Kant's critique of judgement. Oxford University Press, 2015; page 319
56. Kant I. Kritik der Urteilskraft. 1790; http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/3507/85
57. Mayr E. This is biology: The science of the
living world. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997
58. McClintock B. The significance of responses
of the genome to challenge, Nobel lecture, Carnegie Institution of Washington,
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, USA, 8 December, 1983
59. Crick F. Central dogma of molecular
biology. Nature 1970; 227:561-3; PMID:4913914;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/227561a0 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
60. Shapiro JA. Genome informatics: The role of
DNA in cellular computations. Biological Theory 2006; 1(3):288-301;
http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.3.288 [CrossRef]
61. Noble D. The music of life: Biology beyond
the genome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006; page 176
62. Ford BJ. Are Cells ingenious?. Microscope
2004; 52(3/4):135-44
63. Stern DS. Essays on Hegel's philosophy of
subjective spirit, State University of New York Press, 2012; Page 206
64. Spalding KL, Bhardwaj RD, Buchholz BA,
Druid H, Frisén J. Retrospective birth dating of cells in humans. Cell 2005;
122:133-43; PMID:16009139; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.04.028 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
65. Spalding KL, Arner E, Westermark PO,
Bernard S, Buchholz BA, Bergmann O, Blomqvist L, Hoffstedt J, Näslund E,
Britton T, et al. Dynamics of fat cell turnover in humans. Nature 2008;
453:783-7; PMID:18454136; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06902 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
66. Heinrichs A. Age discrimination. Nat Rev
Mol Cell Biol 2005; 6:672; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm1730 [CrossRef]
67. Sridhar BR. Subjective evolution of
consciousness – The play of the sweet Absolute. Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math
1989
68. White RJ, Wolin LR, Massopust LC, Jr,
Taslitz N, Verdura J. Primate cephalic transplantation: neurogenic separation,
vascular association. Transplant Proc 1971; 3:602-4; PMID:4999463 [PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
69. Canavero S. Heaven: The head anastomosis
venture Project outline for the first human head transplantation with spinal
linkage (GEMINI). Surgical Neurol International 2013; 4:S335-42; http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.113444
[CrossRef],
[PubMed]
70. White RJ. Head Transplants. Scientific
American 1999; 10:24-6
71. Hämmerling J. Nucleo-cytoplasmic
interactions in Acetabularia and other cells. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 1963;
14:65-92; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.14.060163.000433 [CrossRef]
72. Chapman CJ, Nugent NA, Schreiber RW.
Nucleic acid synthesis in the chloroplasts of Acetabularia mediterranea. Plant
Physiol 1966; 41:589-92; PMID:5932403; http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.41.4.589 [CrossRef],
[PubMed],
[Web of Science
®]
Article metrics
Views: 1669
Twitter
(20)
Facebook (2)
Users also read
What changed during the axial age: Cognitive styles or reward systems?
Nicolas Baumard, et al.
Volume 8, Issue 5, 2015
Communication is key: Reducing DEK1 activity reveals a link between
cell-cell contacts and epidermal cell differentiation status
Roberta Galletti, et al.
Volume 8, Issue 5, 2015
Move the editors choice logic into a separate
page
Librarians
Institutional
account
Access
entitlements
Co-branding
IP ranges
Link resolver
preferences
Usage reports
Authors & Editors
Societies
Help & Information
Taylor & Francis Group
Powered by Atypon® Literatum
