Origin of Life - A New Concept

A bacteria simply can't have anything even remotely resembling human consciousness, it lacks the hardware necessary for it. It would be akin to running Windows 7 on a computer from the Manhattan Project, it simply can't work.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Arioch: Can you visualize (try!) consciousness originating from quantum interactions with orgainc material? . . . I know . . . . the idea is pretty far outside-the-box . . .!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does consciousness mean reaction to stimulii.
Can it taste? can it smell? hear? see? feel? Communicate? which of the senses?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@wlminex --

Take careful note of what I said. I said that it's impossible for a bacteria to possess anything like human consciousness because it lacks the necessary physical features for said consciousness to emerge. If bacteria do possess some type of "quantum consciousness"(and that's assuming, for the sake of the argument, that such a thing is a possibility in the first place), then it would quite clearly be vastly different from any consciousness that humans experience.

 

Very detailled study http://www.physforum.com/index.php?act=Post&CODE=06&f=27&t=39057&p=513895

 

OK. Do you agree that certain plants like Mimosa are aware of their surroundings because they show rapid movements to touch? Do you contest the view that carnivorous plants such as Nepenthes are aware of their surroundings and even posses mechanisms to attract their prey?

Now, do you agree with the following statement that only such of the above plants are "providentially" aware of their surroundings (because they have to meet the demands for deficient minerals), and the rest of their poor cousins (ordinary plants) are no more aware of their surrroundings than the rocks and the soil they live in?

 

Arioch: Now . . . . add 'evolution' into the quantum consciousness 'mix' . . . .

 

An interesting video in the context of the OP . . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STqkZR2PSR4&feature=g-vrec&context=G25a251bRVAAAAAAAAAw

 

@wlminex --

Evolution or no, a bacteria simply doesn't have the complex brain required for "human consciousness" to emerge. It really is just that simple.

 

Arioch: I agree . . . bacteria do not have equivalent of 'human consciousness' . . . .but they MAY have SOME less-complex form of consciousness

 

Yes Wlminex - but consciousness is a confusing term - you may as well substitute it "Awareness" of surroundings.

 

Wlminex: Here is a brief outline of the article you have sent. You would have read the entire article, but please read this extract also. I post my own comments a little later.
(The article can be accessed at: http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html)

Prof Stanislav Reinis (Dept of Psychology, Univ of Waterloo) and others (2005) found that the hither-to known medium of neural transmissions are inadequate for efficient transmission of signals in Central Nervous System in real time. They have described 9 mechanisms of neuronal communication of which three modes are 1) Synaptic Transmission, which is chemically mediated; 2) Electrical Transmission through gap junctions (faster than chemical), and 3) Ephaptic coupling. The commonest mode of transmission in CNS is synaptic, mediated by neurotransmitters. The authors have found this to be too slow for efficient transfer of information across the nervous system. They cited visual pathways as an example – vision reaches conscious state in the primary visual cortex (V1) and is processed in its association areas (V2) regarding the object's shape, form and movement, then compared with memory traces and emotions in the inferotemporal cortex, and finally integrated in the prefrontal cortex. All these interactions, the researchers have claimed, are impossible without some “acceleration” of interneuronal connections. They also cited Libermann who felt that understanding speech and responding also is not possible by synaptic transmission alone. They also quoted Benjamin Libet who claimed to have shown that, in the case of voluntary actions, the act itself occurred first, and then the conscious intention to do it. This “antedating” is thought by them as a “ Reversal of time by CNS” but conceded at last that the idea itself is absurd. They gave us an inkling of Free Will and Determinism.

Finally, they concluded that “consciousness cannot be reduced to just neuronal activity and neuronal spikes … but a faster mechanism is needed”.

They have hypothesized that there must be some alternative explanation for this faster transmission. They found that “electromagnetic interactions” are not technically possible. The alternative they have chosen is the “submicroscopic interactions at the quantum level”. They said that neurons can generate electrons due to their constant firing of action potentials, and are convinced that billions of neurons may generate faster and efficient interactions.

They further proposed that there exists something called “Real Human Soul” RHS, and went on to describe its properties. It is “above human consciousness” and is a “higher-level control” then consciousness. It is also thought to “penetrate solid matter” possibly at “supraluminal speeds (faster-than-light)”. Here they quote David Bohm. They claim that this is real, not mystical, and “analogous to Immortal Human Soul”. But they say this RHS does not adequately explain all the “select interactions” of firing neurons needed for CNS function.

Finally, they propose yet another hypothesis, called “proto-consciousness” because “it is difficult to believe that human consciousness appeared in evolution all of a sudden, and something similar and simple must exist in nature”.

Overall, the article is beautifully composed containing certain interesting points and with a few solid facts. However, I care to disagree with them on several accounts and I would comment upon this hypothesis a bit later.

 

@ krishnagopal - What did you think of the idea that life started on planet Mercury? http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=29842&st=0

 

You are inventing a new definition for "awareness". No, plants are non-sentient, since, as mentioned above, sentience arises in a brain (and not just a brain stem, but a cortex and a whole lot more). Attracting prey is no different than attracting pollinators. It has nothing to with sentience, only in the genetic predisposition to manifest the attractive traits.

This is silly. Sunflowers track the sun, but not in any way even remotely connected to an awareness. Awareness, as I'm sure you well understand, involves a sense of self. Tracking the sun, or responding to touch, is stimulus response, nothing more. Machines do similar tasks. Would you attribute an awareness to the electric door opener that senses your presence and sends the "Open" command to an actuator? (I sure hope not.) So yes, they are as inert as rocks to awareness and responsive as machines to the stimulus they receive.

 

I looked at this too, and the first thing I noticed that not a single one of these guys is from the biological sciences. The University of Waterloo has no medical school, no school of Biology, its top sciences being architecture, optometry and pharmacy. This is no means a slight against the university. I'm sure they are outstanding. The problem comes with a person making fringe claims about biological processes, who is neither a biologist himself nor practicing in a faculty of any life science. Furthermore, the text appears to have been translated from Czech, which makes me wonder if the author is fluent in English, and, if not, how he could be attached to a University that has English as its native language. It must not be a very solid connection he has to this institution.

The content of the document is utterly unscientific. It's mostly speculation, arm waving and hot air, with invented names for things they wish were true. Anybody can invent explanations for things they imagine - it happens here all the time, and this thread is an example. But that's not science. I guess you're OK with that, even though you yourself are training in a professional career in the life sciences. Go figure.

It is hard enough to try to associate virtual aspects of the mind with the underlying neuronal phenomena without having to dress it up with fiction. This might be good material for a sci-fi movie, but come on, science? Not in a million years.

 

So let us put it this way: A man is ‘sentient’, so also is his pet cat and perhaps a mouse round the corner, because one is aware of the other, meaning that only animals with cortical function are aware of their surroundings, the rest of the living world is as inert as rocks (to awareness and responsive as machines…). What a wonderful idea!

One would not attribute awareness to machines, you are right, how could anybody (except possibly me! as you suspect). I would say an ‘electric door opener’ is sentient when it allows a stranger Mr X and does not allow a stranger MrY, especially when it ‘thinks’ that stranger X is beneficial to it somehow, and especially when it ‘fights’ for its ‘life’ when somebody tries to shut it off at the end of the day. I would say that such a door is certainly full of life if, in its power-off mode, it struggles to ‘steel’ power (its food) from the nearby AC unit. Why not? your sentient pet dog does this all the way. On the other hand, I would not say (in your view) a plant (a creeper for eg) to be aware of its surroundings even if it ‘tries’ to get light by bending and twisting all over to the source of light – it is not aware because it has no cortex, it has no medulla, it has no spine, and it has only some ‘rudimentary life (or no life at all!). well? you say that is the way a scientist has to think? Right?

The characteristic feature of life is its “adaptive irritability” (irritability = 1st definition at Merriam Webster’s online). Your door lacked this adaptive nature.

You may refer to the following journals 1) Plant J. 2003 Oct;36(2):240-55, “stress memory in plants – Arabidopsis has memory functions … ABA entrained plants produced a long-term sensitization”. 2) Nature 442, 1046-1049 doi: 10.1038/nature05022 “Transgeneration memory in plants”. 3) Ann Bot (2003) doi: 10.1093/aob/mcg101 Aspects of Plant Intelligence – Anthony Trewavas (though the last mentioned appears a little far fetched to me even, but science can gain from such extrapolations).

The statement "the rest of the living world is as inert as rocks" appears a little preposterous. Science got benefited with ‘crazy ideas’ (as was our experience from medieval period) , but it cannot go hand-in-hand with dogmas. Pseudoscience (as you put it) may, at some time, transform into real science; but a dogma never will.

 

Without a cortex (and the rest of the package) there can be no sentience.

My point was that sensation (or sense input from an sensor device) does not define sentience.

People don't only think because they have to (as in conflict resolution) but because they can. There are more non-scientists than scientists, and they would generally agree that pond scum are not sentient.

A camera with auto focus/auto iris meets this yet it is not sentient either. Algae are in this class.

By this definition, a spring has memory and is therefore sentient.

Inert as rocks to awareness, I said, meaning unaware, just as rocks are. You become inert when you sleep, and yet the neurons are all still intact. Remove the neurons, and you never wake up. It would be better to model the rest of the living world as "asleep" than as sentient, even though that sounds like the ideation of someone who's insane.

There's a difference between ideas brought forward by the scientific method which were banned under religious superstition, than ideas brought forward out of imagination and opinion which are not grounded in reality. Under your definition, anyone who continues to maintain that the Earth revolves around the sun is being dogmatic.

 

Thats like saying a mousetrap is aware of a mouse - plants dont have anything we would consider awareness.

They may be more advance in response to stimuli because that is their speciality - like diving for whales, killing for tigers, flying for a tern and the brain for a human. But its unfounded to extrapolate anything beyond that.

 

OK. Let us see my point from a different perspective.

Where do you think consciousness is 'lodged' in the case of a human being?
Do you consider an act of reflex withdrawal from pin prick a part of consciousness?
Do you consider breathing a part of consciousness or not?
Do you consider studying for exams a part of consciousness?

 

While there is considerable controversy over just exactly what is the unit of evolution (some say the genome, others populations or the species) there is no controversy over individual organisms. Individuals do not evolve. So one cannot use that as a criterion to judge whether or not a specific organism is alive.