I have read your essay with considerable interest. I appeciate your effort to collate all known 'facts' on the origin of life and present them for systematic scrutiny.

I have a refreshingly new theory. That life on the earth has originated from primordial membranes.

To justify my analogy I will ask a simple question. In a cell (consider a unicellular organism) what structure possesses life? Is it the genetic material or cytoplasm or the membrane? Or let me ask, what is most basic charecteristic of life. Surely it is the consciousness (or irritability) which is fundamental to form life. What is the seat of consciousness? Obviously it is the cell membarne with all its membrane potentials which shows the property of irritability. So, membrane potentials forms the consciousness. The genes and metabolism subserve the essential purpose of consciousness.

How can a membrane form de novo? It is possible that primordial membranes have formed on the earth from hydrocarbon chains that accumulated in the earth's crust. It is also ergonomically possible for the hydrocarbon chains to form bilayes. So the theory goes on ...

I have written a book "The Role of Cell Membrane in the Origin of Life and in Cell Biology" and also opened a website for the book. If you are interested I will discuss the matter further.

Regards Dr D Krishnagopal

The consensus of biologists is that in order to qualify as alive, an object must have most of the following traits:Homeostasis Organization Metabolism Growth Adaptation Response to stimuli ReproductionResponse to stimuli is only one of these eight. Furthermore, if the object had all of the other seven but lacked this one, it might very well still be considered alive.

So your hypothesis, that response to stimuli or "irritability" (which carries the connotation of hostile reaction, which perhaps you did not intend) is the basic and fundamental attribute of life, seems a little weak to me.

Fraggle

You left out evolution.
All living things evolve.

You left out evolution. All living things evolve.The paradigm I saw included evolution as trans-generational adaptation. AFAIK there is no "standard" paradigm.

I have a refreshingly new theory. That life on the earth has originated from primordial membranes.

To justify my analogy I will ask a simple question.This makes no sense. What analogy? Are you saying life has orignated from primordial membrane, or it is like life had originated from primordial membranes. the first is a hypothesis, the second is an undefined analogy. Which did you mean?


In a cell (consider a unicellular organism) what structure possesses life?The entire cell. It is the unity of the cell and the interaction of its parts that constitute life. One might make arguments for each constituent part, but none can exist for long independently. It is all or nothing.



..... what is most basic charecteristic of life.At a recent (2005?) exobilogy conference the participants submitted almost one hundred definitions of life. We seem to know it when we see it, but we can't really agree on what it is.



....Surely it is the consciousness (or irritability) which is fundamental to form life. What is the seat of consciousness? Obviously it is the cell membarne with all its membrane potentials which shows the property of irritability. So, membrane potentials forms the consciousness. The genes and metabolism subserve the essential purpose of consciousness.You need to find an alternative term to consciousness. The word evokes in most people, including most educated people and most scientists, the sense of self awareness. This is not what you intend, but by using the term in an unfamiliar way you will automatically prejudice many against your subsequent arguments.


....How can a membrane form de novo? It is possible that primordial membranes have formed on the earth from hydrocarbon chains that accumulated in the earth's crust. It is also ergonomically possible for the hydrocarbon chains to form bilayes. So the theory goes on ...This is hardly new. It is probable, but hardly worth describing as a 'refreshing new theory'.


I have written a book "The Role of Cell Membrane in the Origin of Life and in Cell Biology" and also opened a website for the book. If you are interested I will discuss the matter further.
May I recommend that you construct a more telling and incisive summary of your theory than you have offered here if you wish anyone to give your work any attention whatsoever.

Just love anonymous "Doctors" who "figured everything out for us simple folk".

I have read your essay with considerable interest. I appeciate your effort to collate all known 'facts' on the origin of life and present them for systematic scrutiny.

I have a refreshingly new theory. That life on the earth has originated from primordial membranes.

To justify my analogy I will ask a simple question. In a cell (consider a unicellular organism) what structure possesses life? Is it the genetic material or cytoplasm or the membrane? Or let me ask, what is most basic charecteristic of life. Surely it is the consciousness (or irritability) which is fundamental to form life. What is the seat of consciousness? Obviously it is the cell membarne with all its membrane potentials which shows the property of irritability. So, membrane potentials forms the consciousness. The genes and metabolism subserve the essential purpose of consciousness.

How can a membrane form de novo? It is possible that primordial membranes have formed on the earth from hydrocarbon chains that accumulated in the earth's crust. It is also ergonomically possible for the hydrocarbon chains to form bilayes. So the theory goes on ...

I have written a book "The Role of Cell Membrane in the Origin of Life and in Cell Biology" and also opened a website for the book. If you are interested I will discuss the matter further.

Regards Dr D Krishnagopal

I would definitely be interested in hearing more.
Is there a website for study?

I'm a tiny bit confused? Is he postulating that reactivity to external events is the key property of life, or that molecular segregation is?

The paradigm I saw included evolution as trans-generational adaptation. AFAIK there is no "standard" paradigm.

Besides, "evolution" is a form of adaption.

~String

Fraggle

You left out evolution.
All living things evolve.

I have a theory that evolution and reproduction as a whole are the result of life developing within a changing/volitile environment. So while this applies to all known life, I hypothesis that if we were to discover life which began in a perfectly stable environment, that it would have no need for evolution. Reproduction possibly due to accidents, but only through budding/splitting, and without genetic material.

I would definitely be interested in hearing more.
Is there a website for study?

Dear sir
Sorry for the inordinate delay in reponding to your request. I do have a web site. You send an e-mail to me to: cmem.kg@rediffmail.com

Your proposition - that there was no need for evolution to occur if the primitive life be perfect - is profound. Yes, but the environment did change from time to time, and there was some scarecity of available resources which prompted the primitive cells to evolve into more competitive beings. But the primitive organisms (like archaea, bacteria etc etc) themselves were perfect enough. Otherwise how do you explain their sustanence all these billions of years, without an attempt to mutate over trillions and trillions of generations?

But the primitive organisms (like archaea, bacteria etc etc) themselves were perfect enough. Otherwise how do you explain their sustanence all these billions of years, without an attempt to mutate over trillions and trillions of generations?What are you talking about??? They have mutated. The timescale of bacteria is so much more compressed than ours that we can actually observe them mutating in laboratory experiments.

As for the archaea, they have been studied so little that we don't know enough about them to draw conclusions. We don't even know if Archaea is actually a Kingdom, or merely a catch-all for diverse creatures that have some vague characteristics in common and may in fact belong to multiple Kingdoms--like Prokaryota and Eukaryota.

There are only six Kingdoms in the more-or-less standard taxonomy, so I'm not sure what you meant by the "etc. etc." Algae and fungi are considerably less "primitive" than archaea, which themselves are somewhat less primitive than bacteria.

Except, of course, that the very word "primitive" is misleading. As far as we can tell, all life originated at the same time and possibly from exactly the same precursor to life. That means that all life has been evolving for the same length of time. So calling some more 'primitive' than others carries an implication that is not correct.

In another topic, I showed that the sodium/potassium pumps not only create potential energy within the membrane, but also define a situation where entropy is lowered in the membrane. This boundary condition, as an induction for the rest of the cellular innards, coordinated the logic sequence of biogenesis leading to the first life.

For example, only left handed proteins are now the rules, which implies a 50% loss of degrees of freedom (loss of entropy) for all life's proteins. One woould expect this from the boundary condition. RNA has lower entropy than proteins (more limited degrees of freedom). It should evolve from proteins in light of the boundary condition. While the change to DNA reflects even lower entropy than RNA. Only life where RNA is replaced by DNA, can move up the next steps of lower entropy. If not, life remains stuck at higher entropy and won't form multicellular.

Experiments have shown that cells can continue to establish the cationic gradient, even in the absence of an intact cell membrane. This is due to long term evolutionary induction by the boundary condition. It makes sense that even the genetic aspects of evolution are dependent on the push of the boundary, such as methylation of genes, which reflects an induction into even lower entropy. This can take genes out of play.

Dear wellwisher, it is worderful that you are trying to work out entropy (decrease or increase) at the membrane level. Generally, for all life processes there is a DECREASE in entropy. But all catabolic processes in the cell like glycolysis, cellular respiration result in an INCREASE in entropy. But the ultimate purpose of all the energy consumed by the cell (or organism as a whole) is to uphold the membrane potentials across the membrane, which results in increased entropy. Membrane potentials manifest as alertness.

Thank you, I will continue the discussion on the boards. Regarding the origin of life: there is some problem with the Metabolism-First theories (chiefly RNA World theory).

Firstly, When there was no metabolism or any other activity for the RNA to perform, what was it coding for? It cannot be presumed that it coded for the proteins (enzymes) first and later metabolism appeared. How did a multitude of RNA molecules formed at a given time and coded for an array of enzymes? One cannot say that, first RNA coded for proteins randomly and then these proteins catalyzed various metabolic pathways. Metabolism, as we know now, cannot function so randomly.orld theory).

Second: All these polymerizations are highly endergonic events, meaning that they need a lot of energy input to build these molecules. This is thermodynamically unfavorable. From where did the urge come to defy entropy, what was the drive?

Third: What has driven the polymerized macromolecules to replicate and reproduce themselves?

The problem with metabolism-first theories: The idea of metabolism-first theories was that amino acids lined up automatically forming proteins which catalyzed various chemical reactions which was the start of metabolism. Soon a drawback became obvious – how could the sequence of amino acids be decided without a code.

Argument: To start with, metabolism needs energy, driving force and guidance. These theories can account for only the energy part of metabolism. Clearly, the drive or guidance was absent at the time of origin of life. Enzymes (proteins) to form need a particular sequence of amino acids, for which a genetic code is necessary. This means that either RNA or DNA should have originated first. Furthermore, all metabolic pathways can be simulated in a lab, but that does not represent life.

If replication started first, there was nothing for it to code for; If metabolism started first there was no coding to order a direction. So, What was it that stared them both?

I have written a book "The Role of Cell Membrane in the Origin of Life and in Cell Biology" and also opened a website for the book. If you are interested I will discuss the matter further.

Regards Dr D KrishnagopalPlease provide the journal citations for the papers you have written on this work which have been peer review and have experimental evidence to back up your ideas. After all, you are a 'doctor' and thus should understand the important of peer review in science and you wouldn't publish a book on some non-reviewed, unsubstantiated, untested notion you have developed, right? Right?

You shouldn't be needing to argue with people in this thread, you should just provide the citations so everyone can see you've done the research and it has been reviewed by reputable academics/researchers. In fact, why didn't you just open with such citations, when you mentioned your book? You do have such citations, right?

My hypothesis has two aspects: one is the concept, and the other is an evidence-based thesis. I am presently describing a concept wherein I am describing the three fundamental properties of life, viz reproduction, metabolism and awareness, and laying foundation to the idea that awareness (or consciousness or adaptive irritability) is most primary characteristic feature. This needs a sort of explanation, which presently I am doing. I ahve suggested that this formed the guiding force for all other cellular processes.

Now is my theory (the experiment): I have mulled over the question of origin (or generation) of this awareness. There has to be a seat for it to arise, is it not. At this age of scientific advancement you canNOT say that ENTIRE cell is responsible for this phenomenon. We know what a genome does, what cytoplasm does and other such details. We are also aware that membrane potentials are generated by the ionic disequilibrium. I have argued that this creates awareness and is responsible for adaptation and 'irritability'. My natural deduction was that primordial membranes formed first on the earth which acquired membrane potentials and generated consciuosness, which subsequently formed (and organized) other cellular architecture.

When I propose such elaborate theory I must substantiate. Here comes the EVIDENCES and CITATIONS. I have proposed a theory that the primordial membranes have formed in the Earth's crust about 3.7 billion years ago and, there goes my theory... I DO have citations and evidences for all there propositions.

I regret to say that I have no peer reviews, as you sought. It appears a pretty long way, if ever. One has to follow the analogy of my hypothesis first, though this is conjectural. One last thing: When Prof Craig Venter created life he DID put his genome into a ghost cell, did he not? Until then then the genome did not replicate. You may say membrane a cover, but that is REALLY the life in the form of consciousness or awareness or whatever. THERE ARE MAY MORE EXAMPLES.

I regret to say that I have no peer reviews, as you sought.
Then what reason does anyone have to think you're anything other than a nut?

Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it). My theory is great, no doubt. I feel funny how you miss the whole point

"Origin" of life I think is a miss-leading Title.


Peace.

Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it). My theory is great, no doubt. I feel funny how you miss the whole point

In science, until sufficient empirical evidence is generated, the correct term is 'hypothesis'. If you wish to present a hypothesis, then great. However, a scientific theory is elevated to one stage higher. A hypothesis only becomes a theory when it is used to generate testable predictions, which are tested by novel empirical experiment or observation, and manages to survive the challenge.

If your idea has not yet been so tested, then I suggest you call it 'hypothesis'.

Hi krishnagopal,
My biology is fairly amateur, and applied clinically rather than biochemically, but I can't shake the feeling that your grasp on this topic is even less advanced than my own, and some quick fact-checking on Wikipedia (I told you I was amateur) seems to support this notion.

Regarding the origin of life: there is some problem with the Metabolism-First theories (chiefly RNA World theory).
If my amateur understanding is correct, the RNA World hypothesis is not a Metabolism-First model.
A metabolism-first model is really a pre-replication model that suggests that in the right conditions, some chemical reaction metabolic cycles we see shared by all organisms may occur in the absence of any enzymes or nucleotide coding chains.

Firstly, When there was no metabolism or any other activity for the RNA to perform, what was it coding for? It cannot be presumed that it coded for the proteins (enzymes) first and later metabolism appeared. How did a multitude of RNA molecules formed at a given time and coded for an array of enzymes? One cannot say that, first RNA coded for proteins randomly and then these proteins catalyzed various metabolic pathways. Metabolism, as we know now, cannot function so randomly.)
The RNA world hypothesis, as I understand it, is that there were RNA strands that were self replicating without protein enzymes; that the RNA strands themselves were the enzymes that catalysed their own reproduction.


Second: All these polymerizations are highly endergonic events, meaning that they need a lot of energy input to build these molecules. This is thermodynamically unfavorable. From where did the urge come to defy entropy, what was the drive?
There are several natural inorganic sources of energy, mainly solar and geothermal.


Third: What has driven the polymerized macromolecules to replicate and reproduce themselves?
Some polymerized macromolecules in the right energetic environment tend to undergo reactions that produce more of the same molecule.
If some (even just one?) such molecule forms by chance in the right environment, then the likely result is replication of that molecule, right?
What 'drive' is needed?


The problem with metabolism-first theories: The idea of metabolism-first theories was that amino acids lined up automatically forming proteins which catalyzed various chemical reactions which was the start of metabolism. Soon a drawback became obvious – how could the sequence of amino acids be decided without a code.
No. That's not a metabolism-first hypothesis at all.
A metabolism-first hypothesis means that out of genes, enzymes, and metabolism, metabolism came first. I.e. that the start of metabolism did not involve genes or enzymes.


Argument: To start with, metabolism needs energy, driving force and guidance.
The fundamental idea behind metabolism-first is the suggestion that perhaps metabolism does not need any guidance or 'driving force'.
It's just chemical reactions that occur in the right energetic environment.

Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it). My theory is great, no doubt. I feel funny how you miss the whole pointWhat am I missing? You've written a book and you claim to be a Dr. As such you should know the central role evidence,and reason play in science and you should know how to do it. Yet when I ask you to provide some evidence you're not a nut you say I'm missing the point? You left a comment on my visitor's page saying that one day I might get it. I get science, I do science, I am a Dr too (not the medical kind). That's why I asked you to provide some evidence, some reason other than your say so. Instead you say something which I utterly disagree with :


Hey! some theories are simply great, on some theories greatness is thurst upon them (by virtue of the MAN who says it). No hypothesis, much less a theory, is great because of who said it. Newton's work on gravity wasn't great because Newton said it, it was great because he demonstrated it explained so many things. His work on calculus he put to real world use, further explaining what previously could not be explained. He also believed in bible codes and alchemy. By your logic they are great because Newton, possibly the greatest physicist ever, said them. They aren't great, they are nonsense.

Every single famous scientist has gotten something wrong somewhere in their career, it's the nature of being human. As such canonising them to perfection is idiotic.

In all cases the theories weren't great because someone said they were but because someone provided evidence demonstrating they were. I'm asking you for evidence and you can't provide. Not only that you demonstrate you don't understand the place evidence has in science.

Are you really a Dr? Medical or academic? What subject?

Are you really a Dr? Medical or academic? What subject?
Medical, it seems.
According to his LinkedIn profile (http://in.linkedin.com/pub/krishnagopal-d/22/9b7/6a), he has an MBBS (a double degree, B.Med,B.Surg) and an M.Surg, from the Sri Venkateswara University of Medical Sciences.

I'm currently studying an MBBS at the University of Qld, and the molecular biology and biochemistry involved is no deeper (less so) than that found in a B.Sc (Biol). So any authority that Dr Krishnagopal has in this field doesn't come from his academic qualifications.

Google doesn't have any hits on his book, except for spam of this thread's OP in a few forums and blogs.

Dear Sirs, I am sorry to have said that 'my theory is great'. Among many things I should'nt have said, this is one thing. I regret the mistake. It is true that No hypothesis is great until it is tested and proved. And I do not pass any personal innuendoes, it is hardly my place. It is true that I am a surgeon (practising surgeon) and if you consider this a disqualification to discuss science and a new hypothesis I have nothing to argue.

Again I am presenting my hypothesis in brief: My hypothesis has two aspects: one is the concept, and the other is an evidence-based thesis. I am presently describing a concept wherein I am describing the three fundamental properties of life, namely, reproduction, metabolism and awareness, and laying foundation to the idea that awareness (or consciousness or adaptive irritability) is most primary characteristic feature. This needs a sort of explanation, which presently I am doing. I have suggested that this formed the guiding force for all other cellular processes.

Now is my theory (the experiment): I have mulled over the question of origin (or generation) of this awareness. There has to be a seat for it to arise, is it not. At this age of scientific advancement you can NOT say that ENTIRE cell is responsible for this phenomenon. We know what a genome does, what cytoplasm does and other such details. We are also aware that membrane potentials are generated by the ionic disequilibrium. I have argued that this creates awareness and is responsible for adaptation and 'irritability'. My natural deduction was that primordial membranes formed first on the earth which acquired membrane potentials and generated awareness (the ability to show adaptive irritability) which subsequently formed (and organized) other cellular architecture.

When I propose such elaborate theory I must substantiate. But if one does not even consider my hypothetical concept as a proposition, it is difficult to convince him of any theoretical part of it. If anybody is willing to go any further I can provide the details of my concept. Or anybody can read it in my website - originoflife.in

You'll want to try the "my life is originated from god" hypothesis and try to re-arrange a new concept of the meaning of that partiular. Theories, assersions, and otherwise bunk arguements in respect to the creationist attempt aren't easy to choose from.

My idea would be to replace "new idea on the origin" with "new idea of creation". This thread is total trash.

It is true that I am a surgeon (practising surgeon) and if you consider this a disqualification to discuss science and a new hypothesis I have nothing to argue. Surgeons generally refer to themselves as Mr, not Dr.


Again I am presenting my hypothesis in brief: My hypothesis has two aspects: one is the concept, and the other is an evidence-based thesis.Except you have no evidence, so how can the second part exist?


Now is my theory (the experiment): I have mulled over the question of origin (or generation) of this awareness. There has to be a seat for it to arise, is it not. At this age of scientific advancement you can NOT say that ENTIRE cell is responsible for this phenomenon. We know what a genome does, what cytoplasm does and other such details. We are also aware that membrane potentials are generated by the ionic disequilibrium. I have argued that this creates awareness and is responsible for adaptation and 'irritability'. My natural deduction was that primordial membranes formed first on the earth which acquired membrane potentials and generated awareness (the ability to show adaptive irritability) which subsequently formed (and organized) other cellular architecture.Nothing but baseless assertions and supposition. No evidence, no experiment, just claims. You say "I have argued" but you haven't argued, you've just stated.


When I propose such elaborate theory I must substantiate.That isn't elaborate, it's a short paragraph where you've used some buzzwords but you haven't provided any evidence, anything more than "I don't know what explains X therefore Y". If you think using a few technical words makes for an 'elaborate theory' then you're just naive. And it's not a theory, its an hypothesis. The two are different things in science.


If anybody is willing to go any further I can provide the details of my concept. Or anybody can read it in my website - originoflife.inWhy haven't you provided all of this stuff to a journal in the form of a scientific paper? That's what I'd do if I honestly believed I had something worthy of scientific attention, as it would freely review my work by relevant scientists and it is a necessary step in getting your work to the attention of said scientists. In fact, that is what I did do when I had such work. That's what academics and researchers do. So why haven't you?

Surgeons generally refer to themselves as Mr, not Dr.
I've been told that's a UK thing. I don't think it's common elsewhere.

No. I have nothing to do with any creationism

All living beings are characterized by the presence of awareness (or consciousness, response-to-stimulus, adaptive irritability). This property is also the MOST primary requirement of life. Where is it generated? In what physical form does it exist?

Plants, for example, do show 'phototaxis' and also respond well to the surrounding changes. The problem is the time-scale. Their response is measured in days, whereas in animals it is in secs and mins. Moreover, consider plants ability to exhibit a variety of contrivances for cross-pollination. Is it not awareness. And don't some bacteria have flagella and cilia? Do they not respond relatively quickly when you apply noxious stimulus to their surroundings? Does it not qualify to be called awareness? That ‘consciousness’ exists in ALL organisms, but is expressed in more and more complex form as we move up in phylogeny.

A seed in its dormant form is also conscious. Is it not? It has kept its genome and its metabolism in its dormant state for an indefinite period of time. But the consciousness (or let us call it awareness) IS working in the background ALL the time, otherwise how does it KNOW that the external environment is conducive for germination?

If you analyze, it becomes immediately obvious that the SEAT of this awareness is in the cell membrane. Genome and genes cannot show this property by themselves, neither is the cytoplasm with all its ‘fixtures’. This property is to be mediated by the cell membrane alone.

In what form is this expressed? It is expressed in the form of membrane potentials, generated across the cell membrane. Membrane potential is the SINE QUA NON of life.

A seed in its dormant form is also conscious. Is it not? It has kept its genome and its metabolism in its dormant state for an indefinite period of time. But the consciousness (or let us call it awareness) IS working in the background ALL the time, otherwise how does it KNOW that the external environment is conducive for germination?How does an ice cube know when to melt? It sits in the Arctic for decades, even centuries, and then knows when to melt! Ice cubes are conscious!!

When an ice cube melts into water, it is increasing its entropy (ice crystals have more molecular order than in water), which is very much in accordance with the nature. ALL NATURAL, SPONTANEOUS PROCESSES (OR REACTIONS) TEND TO INCREASE ENTROPY.

The peculiarity in life's processes is that it tends to DECREASE the entropy. It is a property sometimes called Negentropy (negative entropy). Life's processes defy nature in this way. (But, it is a bit complicated to know that ULTIMATELY nature wins over and entropy finally increases. where and how is another subject). A growing plant (a germinating seed) increases the molecular order (negentropy) by several times, in defiance of natural tendancy to decrease disorder (increase entropy). AN ICE CUBE FOLLOWS THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE; WHEREAS A GERMINATING SEED DEFIES THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE.

And also, a germinating seed shows several features of ADAPTATION (can we call it awareness?), whereas an inert ice cube follows its fate without a struggle.

There is no defiance of thermodynamic principles on the part of life. If you feel there is please state clearly which principle is defied.

When an ice cube melts into water, it is increasing its entropy (ice crystals have more molecular order than in water), which is very much in accordance with the nature. ALL NATURAL, SPONTANEOUS PROCESSES (OR REACTIONS) TEND TO INCREASE ENTROPY.

Except when they don't...

http://rlv.zcache.com/snowflake_philosophers_funny_gifts_tees_cards_etc_ postcard-p239257798005006640trdg_400.jpg

All processes, including processes associated with life and consciousness, result in an increase in global entropy.

Local decreases in entropy can occur spontaneously, eg water freezing.

Life's processes defy nature in this way.... WHEREAS A GERMINATING SEED DEFIES THERMODYNAMIC PRINCIPLE.
This isn't Bishadi with a grammar and spell checker is it?

A local decrease of entropy can occur, in non-life processses also. But when snow forms that is due to a process of convection of air mass going in cycles called 'fronts', where heat EXCHANGE takes place. ONE IMPORTANT THING: ENTROPY MAY DECREASE LOCALLY DUE TO LIFE OR NON-LIFE EVENTS, BUT IT ALWAYS (always) ACCOMPANIED BY AN EQUAL OR GREATER increase IN ENTROPY IN THE SURROUNDINGS (OR UNIVERSE). So, with any event the TOTAL entropy of the Universe always increases. This point is illustrated below, in connection with a prominent life process of ecological importance.

In photosynthesis light energy is 'taken in' and this energy is stored in the form of carbohydrates. For this to happen the exited electrons transfer energy to the CO2 molecules, reducing them to carbohydrates. There is a decrease in entropy in these events - CO2 is less order than carbohydrates, which is against the law of nature. But what we have to consider is the conversin of water (H2O) to oxygen, where the entropy is again increased. This is how O2 is liberated from plants. The end result is an increase of entropy only.

When a house is built, there is an increased order (decreased entropy) in the form of masonary work; but is accompanied by pulverizing the nearest mountain, which again is increasing disorder. Another commanplace example: when we we cool our rooms with air-conditioning we naturally heat-up the surroundings.

which is against the law of nature.
Hardly.
I think you're seriously confused.

Dear Mr. Ophiolite, I shouldn't have used the word 'defy' in this context (as is the convention). What actuallly I meant was that all of the ANABOLIC life processes result in an increased order. All the natural (spontaneous) events tend towards a decrease in order (increased entropy). But we must also understand that all the CATABOLIC processes result in a decreased order, which goes on well with the nature. BUT PLEASE CONSIDER THIS: IF NOT FOR THE LATER PROCESS THE FORMER PROCESS WOULD HAVE not BEEN POSSIBLE!! Negentropy follows entropy, which in turn follows negentropy so on and so forth. This is the reason plants need a continuous supply of sunlight and we need our food. This INPUT of energy drives the eternal life's cycle.

No No confusion. It is all crystal clear. There are no breaks in the cycle.

In photosynthesis light energy is 'taken in' and this energy is stored in the form of carbohydrates. For this to happen the exited electrons transfer energy to the CO2 molecules, reducing them to carbohydrates. There is a decrease in entropy in these events - CO2 is less order than carbohydrates, which is against the law of nature
This is no more against the law of nature than water freezing.
In both cases, there is a simultaneous increase in surrounding entropy.


What actuallly I meant was that all of the ANABOLIC life processes result in an increased order. All the natural (spontaneous) events tend towards a decrease in order (increased entropy).
You need to review your biochem. All reactions, including anabolic, result in an increase in entropy. This is usually because the anabolic reaction must be driven by a simultaneous catabolic reaction, such as ATP -> ADP + Pi.


krishnagopal, I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you need to do some more work on the fundamental science. For example, you could maybe sit down and work out the thermodynamics of some (or all!) of the reaction steps in gluconeogenesis.

Looking forward to some intelligent discussion,
Pete

Thank you very much for your interest. recall from your basic books that anabolic reactions are endergonic and they should result in a DECREASE in entropy (locally). It is another matter that S[universe] should invariably increase. You try to understand that these things occur in cycles and the ULTIMATE result must comply with the 1st law (law of conservation of energy and matter). THERE ARE no LOOSE ENDS.

my advise. when you read metabolism read holistically. Try to connect one thing to the other. Then you understand the grand cycle, connecting metabolism and energy transactions. I ahve written essays on metabolism and bioenergetics which are reviewed by senior professors. Glycolysis, cellular respiration, beta-oxidation are all catabolic; gluconeogenesis, photosynthesis, calvin cycle are anabolic. Read them SEPERATELY and again try to CONNECT them. Finish your reading only after the cycle is understood. Then you cannot miss the point.

...recall from your basic books that anabolic reactions are endergonic...
Too basic. When you consider all reactants I believe that you will find that no anabolic process is actually endergonic.

Take gluconeogenesis from pyruvate, for example.
It's anabolic, because we take two pyruvates and build one glucose, right?
And it seems to be endergonic, because the free energy of glucose is greater than the free energy of the pyruvates, right?

But that's not the whole picture, is it?

Consider all the reactants and products in the pathway:
Reactants:
2 Pyruvate + 6 H2O + 4 ATP + 2 GTP + 2 NADH + 2 H+
Products:
Glucose + 4 ADP + 2 GDP + 6 Pi + 2 NAD+

Now, I'm not savvy enough to figure the Gibbs free energy (it depends on concentrations, I think?) but I note that the conversions of ATP to ADP+Pi and GTP to GDP+Pi are highly exergonic, so if you think that this complete reaction is endergonic, I'd be very interested in your calculations.


You can consider any step of any anabolic pathway, and as long as you consider all the reactants and products you'll always find that the reaction is exergonic.


If I'm mistaken, I would of course be glad to learn why.
Are any of your essays available online?

Very nice, indeed. That is the exact point I wanted to prove. all anabolic reactions ARE accompanied by a compensating exergonic reaction. INVARIABLY. So that the total entropy of the universe ALWAYS increases. I have taken photosynthesis as an example, but your example of gluconeogenesis is still better. By convention we are generally concerned only with the anabolic side of the reaction. But when we speak thermodynamics we have to consider both sides, to total up the final outcome of any reaction.

At the same time, needless to say, an exergonic goes 'alone', as it has already increaesd the entropy of the system.

Shall we go a bit further?

Energy is defined as capacity to do work, and work is defined as the ability to cause specific change. Thus metabolism effects a change in a cell. Cells may have to perform six different kinds of work for sustenance. 1. Synthetic work: this involves biosynthesis of polymers for growth, storage and other activities. 2. Mechanical work: this causes movement (like locomotion, ciliary movement, movement of chromosomes, cytoplasmic streaming etc). 3. Concentration/Electrical work: this causes movement of ions across the membrane against their concentration gradients thereby generating membrane potentials. This mode of work done by the cell is less conspicuous but it consumes about 2/3rd of the total energy. 4. Regulatory work: this work uses energy in cell-signaling mechanism to and fro between the external environment and the genome and to tailor cellular activities as per its need. 5. Thermal energy is also generated to keep the cells at optimum temperature. 6. Light energy is generated only in the rare phenomenon of bioluminescence. And ATP provides the energy.

Dear Pete, my essays are not available on-line. Anyway a person of your understanding may not need my essays, which cover only basic concepts for students.

OK, thanks anyway.

Consider human neurons also: The energy is supplied continuously in the form glucose. Though some amount of this energy is utilized to move the molecular motors to generate and propagate signals and to perform some baisc cellular functions, majority of energy entering the neuron is used to generate membrane potentials.

This is clearly documented in the following passage - “the major portion of the energy requirement of nerve – about 70% - is the portion used to maintain polarization of membrane by the action of Na+-K+ ATPase. …nerve has a resting heat while inactive, an initial heat during the action potential, and a recovery heat that follows activity…. the recovery heat after a single impulse is about 30 times the initial heat”(Ref: Review of Medical Physiology, William Ganong, 21st edition, Page 60).

There are no rebuttals! But I carry on regardless, until I make my First point.

The above first paragraph indicates that, the energy that entered the cell (or an organism) is either stored in or is spent in doing work and some is lost as heat. But the majority of energy (2/3rd) is used to maintain a DISEQUILIBRIUM status at the cell membrane. The second paragraph (of human neuron) proves that the majority (70%) is used to activate Na+-K+ ATPase. This generates ionic gradient, the purpose of which is the production of membrane potentials (& Action Potentials, if necessary). In other words: The energy which entered the cell leaves the cell (after some being stored) by ultimately generating ELECTRICAL potentials across the membrane (which is then converted to heat).

The function of this disequilibrium is three fold: 1. it maintains homeostasis (like high intracellular K+ and low Na+, and other ionic concentrations) to prevent the cell from either bursting or shrinking and to facilitate optimum concentrations. 2. It generates membrane potentials which enable them to perform such actions like phagocytosis, locomotion, Feed-Fight-Fright-Flight response (adaptive irritability). 3. The generated membrane potentials create awareness of its surroundings.

Without the above three functions a cell cannot survive for any length of time. Nor do ANYOTHER organelle of the cell performs these functions. Again, In other words: The metabolism of a cell is SERVING (or assisting) the membarnes to do this work. The genome and the genes have an important regulatory and supervisory function to ensue correct functioning of this work (apart from reproductory function). But the ULTIMATE PURPOSE of all the cellular activity performed by various organelles is to UPHOLD these three functions. And this work IS done at the membrane level only. Thus, I conclude with the following statement.

AWARENESS IS THE RESULT OF RELENTLESS FIRING OF ELECTRICAL POTENTIALS ACROSS THE MEMBRANE.

Is it that bad!?

Except, of course, that the very word "primitive" is misleading. As far as we can tell, all life originated at the same time and possibly from exactly the same precursor to life. That means that all life has been evolving for the same length of time. So calling some more 'primitive' than others carries an implication that is not correct.

Primitive in this sense means some species that is left differentiated than another one from the common ancestor they shared. Life chimps are more primitive than humans as chips are less different from that common ancestor than a human is.

Not getting the edgeways of this discussion. Does this imply that there was no evolution of species from the less-complicated to the more-complicated organisms? Is not the human being ultimate product of biological evolution.

Not getting the edgeways of this discussion. Does this imply that there was no evolution of species from the less-complicated to the more-complicated organisms? Is not the human being ultimate product of biological evolution.

Simple answer: No, humans are not the ultimate product of evolution.

Did you get a furlow for the holidays? Congratulations!

Then in that case human beings should appear primitive when the new (more advanced) species emerge. Then what is the row on the term "primitive".

What Skeptical said. The word "primitive" is ambiguous and misleading in this context. But I think that's minor point of semantics (hardly a "row").

Humans are not in any sense "the ultimate product of biological evolution." Yes, humans appear primitive compared to other organisms (real and potential).

I doubt that human biology is the most complex, advanced, or elegant biology in existence.

I doubt that the human genome is the most complex, advanced, or elegant genome.

I doubt that humans are the most complex, advanced (except in a few specific contexts), or elegant organisms.

I'm not sure that the measures of "more advanced" and "less advanced" can be objectively applied to organisms at all.

Whay are you unwilling to post the link to your website here, Krishnagopal? I'm not sure I want to send you an email in order to get to see the website. You can either post it here, or send it to me in a PM through this Forum.

What Skeptical said. The word "primitive" is ambiguous and misleading in this context. But I think that's minor point of semantics (hardly a "row").

Humans are not in any sense "the ultimate product of biological evolution." Yes, humans appear primitive compared to other organisms (real and potential).

I doubt that human biology is the most complex, advanced, or elegant biology in existence.

I doubt that the human genome is the most complex, advanced, or elegant genome.

I doubt that humans are the most complex, advanced (except in a few specific contexts), or elegant organisms.

I'm not sure that the measures of "more advanced" and "less advanced" can be objectively applied to organisms at all.



Can you guy give him a chance, to express himself some more .Otherwise
it seams like some people in the forum do not allow any other ideas.

Hi Pete - to beleive in extraterrestrial "life" is a strong scientific debate; to beleive in extraterrestrial "intelligent life" is a movie fantasy; to beleive in extraterrestrial "warring and hostile life" is merely a horror movie. We can only say confidently that there is extraterrestrial life out there in all probability - but by no means we can conjecture the extent of development at present (may be in future yes, but not near future). Regarding the "more-or-less advanced" it can be replaced with "more complex organism".

Whay are you unwilling to post the link to your website here, Krishnagopal? I'm not sure I want to send you an email in order to get to see the website. You can either post it here, or send it to me in a PM through this Forum.

Why not!! You can access my website here - www.originoflife.in

Hi Pete - to beleive in extraterrestrial "life" is a strong scientific debate; to beleive in extraterrestrial "intelligent life" is a movie fantasy; to beleive in extraterrestrial "warring and hostile life" is merely a horror movie. We can only say confidently that there is extraterrestrial life out there in all probability - but by no means we can conjecture the extent of development at present (may be in future yes, but not near future). Regarding the "more-or-less advanced" it can be replaced with "more complex organism".

I wasn't thinking about extraterrestrial biology.

I doubt that humans are the most complex terrestrial organism.

I doubt that the human genome is the most complex, advanced, or elegant terrestrial genome.

I doubt that human biology is the the most complex terrestrial biology.

Why not Pete, At least as of now? Certainly the human brain is the most complex and advanced product of biological evolution. Biologically all organisms appear more or less same - all organisms run somewhat similar metabolism to sustain themselves. All of them have the same 'will to survive'. But there appears a vast difference in the degree of 'encephalization' across phylogenetic tree of evolution - till it has reached the highest degree (so far) in the human being. His intelligence and creativity are the suffficient evidences.

Why not Pete, At least as of now? Certainly the human brain is the most complex and advanced product of biological evolution. Biologically all organisms appear more or less same - all organisms run somewhat similar metabolism to sustain themselves. All of them have the same 'will to survive'. But there appears a vast difference in the degree of 'encephalization' across phylogenetic tree of evolution - till it has reached the highest degree (so far) in the human being. His intelligence and creativity are the suffficient evidences.

No. We do not exhibit the highest degree of evolution. You are what is known as egocentric. We are no more advanced than an armadillo.

Sorry...

“ Originally Posted by krishnagopal
Why not Pete, At least as of now? Certainly the human brain is the most complex and advanced product of biological evolution. Biologically all organisms appear more or less same - all organisms run somewhat similar metabolism to sustain themselves. All of them have the same 'will to survive'. But there appears a vast difference in the degree of 'encephalization' across phylogenetic tree of evolution - till it has reached the highest degree (so far) in the human being. His intelligence and creativity are the suffficient evidences.

perhaps


No. We do not exhibit the highest degree of evolution. You are what is known as egocentric. We are no more advanced than an armadillo. Sorry...

that origin , is an insult to the highest degree to Humanity

and I resent it

to think that this is what we think of ourselves by any body is a shame really

a damn shame

Surely I must be misssing your point of view entirely.

Can you explain scientifically how an armadillo is as much intellectually advanced as humans.

Surely I must be misssing your point of view entirely.

Can you explain scientifically how an armadillo is as much intellectually advanced as humans.

Not to put words in Origin's virtual mouth, but I interpret him to be referring to the relativity of each species in its phylogenetic position. The armadillo is at the top of its clade, and so are we. Each is highly adapted to the particular stressors that produced its traits. More precisely, each ancestor adapted - the cumulative adaptations were the best suited for selection. So here we are.

I also think Origin is responding to the anthropocentric view that prevails among folks who feel humans are inherently special.

that origin , is an insult to the highest degree to Humanity

and I resent itTough shit. If you are too infantile to accept the truth when it is offered then you can wallow in anthropocentric ignorance. As mammals there appears to be zero evidence that armadillos have undergone fewer (or more) mutations and hence evolutionary changes since their line and our line diverged. If you have such evidence please present it here.

krishnagopal, you are focusing on human intellect. What if we focus on flying ability, or eyesight, or speed, or strength, etc. Why have you singled out the one thing that makes us look 'more advanced' and ignored the many things that make us look 'weak'?

Not to put words in Origin's virtual mouth, but I interpret him to be referring to the relativity of each species in its phylogenetic position. The armadillo is at the top of its clade, and so are we. Each is highly adapted to the particular stressors that produced its traits. More precisely, each ancestor adapted - the cumulative adaptations were the best suited for selection. So here we are.

I also think Origin is responding to the anthropocentric view that prevails among folks who feel humans are inherently special.

What he said.:D

that origin , is an insult to the highest degree to Humanity

and I resent it

Why? It is true. Maybe this will help.
You are special because you have a big brain.
A cheetah is special because he can run so damn fast.
A honey bee is special because he can see in ultra-violet wave lengths.
A blue whale is special because they are so big.

If you want to believe that a big brain is the 'specialist', knock yourself out.


to think that this is what we think of ourselves by any body is a shame really

a damn shame

My young fellow we are just animals, get over yourself! An animal with absurdly large cabeza, but an animal none the less.

I should answer this categorically –

>>The armadillo is at the top of its clade, and so are we. Each is highly adapted to the particular stressors that produced its traits. More precisely, each ancestor adapted - the cumulative adaptations were the best suited for selection.>>

Not only armadillos but every organism on this earth is highly adapted to its surroundings. Those organisms which could not adapt have become extinct. We must realize that the so-called “disadvantageous” species are only disadvantageous in the “human eyes”. You may think the eyeless earthworms (because they have not ascended well in your cladograms) are disadvantaged but the very fact that they have survived and maintained their progeny across many millions of years show that they have adapted well.

The cladograms are again only one method in taxonomy – the divisions are only arbitrary for the human understanding. Really nature will not follow your rules and clades.

>>I also think Origin is responding to the anthropocentric view that prevails among folks who feel humans are inherently special.>>

I must make it perfectly clear to you that I am no anthropocentric. I can give you a list of the following disadvantages the humans themselves can posses

Humans cannot fly
Humans cannot turn their heads completely back as some birds do
Humans cannot even reach their backs to scratch
Human’s food passages and air passages are adjacent so that they may choke at any time
Human urogenital tracts are combined – why?
Human’s smelling and hearing capacity is not so perfect
Human’s so called “intellect” is shoddy at best –
….. The list is endless
Who ever had said that man is the center of the universe? He has a pretty long way to go, and there may be better species “out there”

>>Why have you singled out the one thing that makes us look 'more advanced' and ignored the many things that make us look 'weak'?>>

Now, I must answer this. You may agree that all organisms on the earth have three fundamental characteristics – awareness of its surroundings, ability to reproduce and metabolism for its survival (rest of the other features can be accommodated into one of these). I believe that the most primary of these three is the awareness – and it is the subtlest. All organisms posses it and at all times – as phylogeny progressed the awareness has transformed into consciousness and lead to human intellect. Thus, I would say that the human intellect has (to a limited extent) overcame the other physical disabilities. This is open for discussion

This sort of silence is not new. Whenever a new idea is presented there is this kind of silence. It is our refusal to accept something new. I was even accused of being ‘too speculative’ when I proposed my hypothesis that ‘life has originated in primordial membranes’. Can I say that such people are dogmatic? Science cannot be based on dogma (as religion is) – there can be debate. I have based my hypothesis by the following analogy.

The primordial molecules (eg nucleic acids) formed from the ‘primordial soup’ started replicating themselves “Replication First Theory” – my question is how did they ‘know’ to replicate? What was the urge. On the other hand it is proposed that these primordial molecules (eg, proteins) started to engineer cascades of chemical reactions to control their surrounding milieu (Metabolism First Theory) – my question is how did these molecules ‘know’ anything of their surroundings? The simple answer is that ‘somehow’ they started reproducing or metabolizing.

My answer is that the ‘know’ has come first. The molecules have first become ‘aware of their own presence’. What sort of molecules do we expect to have such awareness? Certainly those molecules that need no code for them to form. What sort of molecules we have in our present day cells that have no known code for them to operate? They are hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons must have first formed primordial membranes which became aware of the surroundings – as discussed in some detail in my website. You may know that hydrocarbons can form without the intervention of life’s processes and are ubiquitous in the universe – found across interstellar spaces and nebulae.

The origin of life is in the Division of cells.

Every cell of every species of life was divided to create the female.

For that existed, cell division.

Therefore each animal has its female, thanks to cell division.

Kind regards,
Victor Elias Espinoza Guedez

The origin of life is in the Division of cells.

Every cell of every species of life was divided to create the female.

Therefore each animal has its female, thanks to cell division.

[/B]

Spinoza friend, How true it is! Everything is in halves - living or non-living. You only called them male-female.

I had to read between the lines to get your purport.

Not a flutter! Flat?

The metabolism first theory has an advantage in terms of potentials. Chemical reactions move spontaneously in the direction of lowering energy and increasing entropy. Combustion/metabolism goes with the flow. This creates an easy and reliable energy stream with a constant direction. The molecules can align along the shore of this repetitive energy stream.

Templates also make use of energy potential, but this is based on secondary bonding forces. The proper base pairing means minimal energy in terms of hydrogen bonding energy. But this is energy is weaker than the covalent bonding energy lowering within metabolism. Template binding has the disadvantage of lowering entropy, until it detaches. This stream is weaker, which makes it harder to align along the stream.

Metabolism has all the energy it needs (combustion analogy), plus enough energy to spare, to drive the formation of the cell's energy supply, ATP. This occurs along an energy stream to CO2 and H2O. Genetic templates need energy rich molecules to begin; tri-phosphates. These will need an energy stream to form, and are more likely to appear near a substantial energy stream.

Dear Wellwisher, Your “energy stream analogy” is very interesting. But if we follow your analogy only, the life processes must come to a stand-still after sometime, because thermodynamics allows only one-way pass. This is because, you have showed only one direction in this stream in the case of metabolism; the reverse direction is that of an anabolic reaction (which decreases entropy) that always occurs in a living cell. This combination of anabolism and catabolism forms a “repetitive energy stream” as you put it. For the catabolism (cellular respiration) to run eternally there must be anabolism also. This means that, anabolism forms macromolecules to provide ‘fuel’ to run catabolism (to break sugars into CO2 and H2O). But, For the macromolecules to form is not in strict accordance with the principles of thermodynamics. Nature does not allow a decrease in entropy, at least without allowing a compensatory increase in the entropy somewhere else in the universe. Life processes trick the nature to do this job. The trick is simple – for decreasing the entropy of molecules and to build macromolecules, life takes-in the surrounding energy. In plants, for example, to produce energy-containing sugars (decrease in entropy) through photosynthesis, nature has to undergo some sort of change so that finally entropy in the surroundings has to increase, and this is done by breaking water (H2O is a source of electrons, as you know, in oxygenic phototrophs) and liberating oxygen (this increases entropy). This is the simple reason why plants need sun light and we need our daily ration to keep life going.

Now the question of templates. Sure, to join one unit with other to build macromolecules of nucleic acids or proteins using codes also needs thermodynamic principles. To run the above metabolic show, it needs a direction (in the form of codes) to direct the chain of reactions one succeeding the other. This is accomplished by proteins (enzymes) which, in turn, are coded by DNA.

The complex metabolic processes cannot run without a direction (codes) – but at the same time, a coding system cannot evolve without an existing metabolism – the dilemma is whether ‘replication-first’ or metabolism-first’?? The answer may be that both of them are complimentary – one cannot exist without the other. It follows that they developed together. But we must ask a question here – what is the whole purpose of this duel mechanism? The answer again is - To harness incoming energy and supply it to the living cell where it is needed. Energy is needed to do work – there are 4 kinds of work a cell has to perform to live – Synthetic, Mechanical, Electrical and Regulatory. Synthetic and regulatory are anabolic works; whereas mechanical and electrical are catabolic. If you think correctly, mechanical movements are also achieved by means of electrical work. Electrical work is done almost entirely at the level of membranes, by the way of ionic transfer. Thus, catabolic work is chiefly represented by electrical activity around the membranes. In other words all the metabolic cycles occurring in a cell assist in upholding the electrical acticity around the membranes. How is this electrical energy utilized at the membranes? This is converted to membrane potentials across the membrane – why – again, this is to ‘do work’.

The conclusion is simple: The purpose of all activity occurring in a cell is to sustain the membrane potentials across the membranes.

What is this electrical activity doing at the membranes – it is ‘creating awareness’ of its surroundings. Why is this awareness essential? Because it is only the way by which a cell can ‘know’ of its presence in its surrounding milieu. But then what is this ‘know’? That is life. The ‘know’ had orchestrated the development of all these sequences of metabolism and replication.

Why, lastly, is reproduction? Life, somehow, ‘knew’ that it cannot sustain for long, and death is inevitable. Reproduction is a life’s ploy to win over death.

Hence my “Awareness-First” hypothesis.

my question is how did these molecules ‘know’ anything of their surroundings?.They don't need to know anything. It is simple chemistry and thermodynamics.

But how do microorganisms, for eg, 'go' insearch of food - they have to sense the external world. And why do the animals and plants urge to reproduce at the cost of so many risks and adventures - they know the inevitable. Simple chemistry is no life -like the one you run in labs - it dies sooner than later, as we see daily in our lab experiments. The urge is what makes life sustain against odds, as we see in daily life.

Third: What has driven the polymerized macromolecules to replicate and reproduce themselves?

IMPO (James R, ONLY MY SPECULATION here re: OP's query). "Speculation: Casimir or other quantum effects?"

Third: What has driven the polymerized macromolecules to replicate and reproduce themselves?

IMPO (James R, ONLY MY SPECULATION here re: OP's query). "Speculation: Casimir or other quantum effects?"

Since we are just throwing out random words that have to do with quantum effects how about the photoelectic affect or tunneling.:shrug:

Since we are just throwing out random words that have to do with quantum effects how about the photoelectic affect or tunneling.:shrug:

NOW . . . you're thinking!! Both of your suggestions have merit.

NOW . . . you're thinking!! Both of your suggestions have merit.

I have to refuse to believe that you have a PhD in geology. I have too much respect for the field. IMO the only other options that I can see is that you have had a brain injury or are suffering from some sort of dementia. I am not making an accusation it is just my opinion - I am trying to come to grips with your alledged education and what comes out of your mind - there is a such a bizarre disconnect.

Third: What has driven the polymerized macromolecules to replicate and reproduce themselves?

IMPO (James R, ONLY MY SPECULATION here re: OP's query). "Speculation: Casimir or other quantum effects?"

The same drive which has driven to polymerize the macromolecules, and the same drive which orchestrated these macromolecules to run metabolic cycles. The 'immediate' aim is to uphold membrane potentials to enable continuous awareness of the surroundings. The 'ultimate' aim is to "live for ever" - or if that is not possible -"enable reproduction to sustain its progeny".

Krishnagopal: I agree. . . . IMPO, I also believe that the 'mechanisim' for this drive to uphold membrane potentials issues at the quantum level.

But how do microorganisms, for eg, 'go' insearch of food - they have to sense the external world.This does not have to be a conscious sensing and therefore they do not need to 'know' things. You appear to be using 'know' in such a general way that any hint of its standard meaning have evaporated.


And why do the animals and plants urge to reproduce at the cost of so many risks and adventures -Because animals and plants that lack the mechanisms or drives to reproduce do not leave offspring. Those that do possess such mechanisms and drives are more likley to leave offspring. The more effective these mechanisms and drives ar, the more offspring are left and the more these effective mechanisms and drives are spread through the population. Natural Selection.


- they know the inevitable..Really. A daffodil knows it will ultimately die? A graptolite knew its entire phylum would become extinct?

Krishnagopal: I agree. . . . IMPO, I also believe that the 'mechanisim' for this drive to uphold membrane potentials issues at the quantum level.

Surely, every single reaction occuring in a cell, and everything else, for that matter, works at the quantum level. The only problem is that we do not know exactly how it can be applied to life's processes. The quantum theory may explain events at the microcosm (subatomic) level to some extant, but fails at macrocosm (universe) level. What we really need is a good "Theory Of Everything", which can explain allevents in the universe unequivocally. May be something like that is in the offing in the form of "Superstring Theory", but personally I doubt it. I would love to hear from you if you have any idea (even vague) how quantum mechanics works to generate membarne potential.

Krishnagopal: I'll soon send you a PM with my observations, deductions, and ideas (not theories).

Regards,
wlminex

This does not have to be a conscious sensing and therefore they do not need to 'know' things. You appear to be using 'know' in such a general way that any hint of its standard meaning have evaporated.

Because animals and plants that lack the mechanisms or drives to reproduce do not leave offspring. Those that do possess such mechanisms and drives are more likley to leave offspring. The more effective these mechanisms and drives ar, the more offspring are left and the more these effective mechanisms and drives are spread through the population. Natural Selection.

Really. A daffodil knows it will ultimately die? A graptolite knew its entire phylum would become extinct?

What I mean by ‘know’ is a sense of its surroundings. It should also include ‘response to stimuli’ and perhaps ‘adaptation’ as well. This may also be called awareness. You are right – the meaning of ‘know’ is distorted.

The mechanism by which this awareness operates is really subtle. A plant is certainly aware of its surroundings – otherwise how to explain phototaxis. A bacterium is aware of its surroundings – otherwise how do we explain chemotaxis.

Same way: Plants ‘know’ that they cannot stay put at a place forever, and that they have to find different places, different opportunities – the mechanism they adopt is the ingenious methods of “seed dispersal”.

Same way: Plants ‘know’ that they lose ‘vigour’ sooner or later if they do not crossbreed – they found out their versatile contrivances of cross-pollination.

Same way: Plants do ‘know’ that they may become extinct if proper action is not taken – that is their reason to invent mechanisms to adapt according to the changing environment in the form of mutation and natural selection.

Having said the above things, I find myself naïve in really understanding the true spirit of evolution. I cannot explain why certain species have become extinct and remain fossilized. And why some should continue for millions of years (perhaps billions of years, as in archaea) without interruption. I cannot explain many more of such things.

......
Having said the above things, I find myself naïve in really understanding the true spirit of evolution. I cannot explain why certain species have become extinct and remain fossilized. And why some should continue for millions of years (perhaps billions of years, as in archaea) without interruption. I cannot explain many more of such things.
There is an element of luck involved as well. Put it down to good luck and bad luck. (Luck = random chance) :)

Luck is right - only that you cannot be lucky twice

Luck is right - only that you cannot be lucky twiceNo you are wrong there, you can only be unlucky once. You can be lucky forever. Like playing Russian roulette you are only unlucky once.
Unlucky in terms of evolution means extinction.

If luck drives life's processes we would all be extinct by now. how can a lion see a hare -it may see or it may not - at random. how can you perform your daily maths - you may get it right or wrong - at random.

Even "life-less" processes cannot be random - when you add bicarbonate to acid you may get a reaction or not - random choice.

It all appears random because human beings have not understood the grand design completely - No, no place for religion here - it is all beyond religion.

This is such a weird thread. You are a reputed surgeon, but you remind me of the character that rolls in to town on a wagon and sets up a medicine show. You have all the markings of pseudoscience, yet the credentials to know when you are crossing the boundaries between truth and fiction. I think I would describe you as a deliberate pseudoscientist, as opposed to the many accidental pseudoscientists whose wagons are parked in other threads right around the corner.

Have you yourself ever been anesthetized? I have. I was out cold. I was already speaking when they woke me up, in other words, in an active dream state that was responding to their prompts, yet so thoroughly stoned I had zero perception that a conversation was under way. I just woke up into it.

Now that's what I call being unconscious. And it's no stretch to realize that during that time I had no consciousness. So even to declare that humans possess consciousness is qualified by whether or not they are actually awake. And then we wonder how many coma patients are permanently unconscious.

And yet you want to entertain the idea that bacteria have a consciousness, etc.? No. That's an elixer that's had the label swapped from the bottle that contained plain old glucose.

The idea that cell motility can be linked to a consciousness is purely a mind game. It looks like something you see moving which seems to have a consciousness of some kind — your banjo pluckin raccoon or whatever else you're carrying in that wagon. But it ain't no raccoon. It's just this nanomachine from 2 billion years BC. It has its own story, not the one we script for it. You can't reinvent nature from the top down and go sending the cause for its existence backwards in time. Assuming you're not the Supreme Commander of the Universe, that is.

Are you? Because I could use infinite wealth, eternal youth, and the powers of superman.

And as you could no sooner snap those into existence for me, you can't make nature into what it's not. Sorry to bust your bubble, but since you seem to be gushing with self-esteem, I think no harm is done by simply telling you you're flat wrong.

Krishnagopal: Still haven't gotten to my PM response for you. But it will involve the following: “To Understand the Infinitely Large, One Must Comprehend the Infinitesimally Small” (subtitle to a wlminex treatise in preparation)

Not to put words in Origin's virtual mouth, but I interpret him to be referring to the relativity of each species in its phylogenetic position. The armadillo is at the top of its clade, and so are we. Each is highly adapted to the particular stressors that produced its traits. More precisely, each ancestor adapted - the cumulative adaptations were the best suited for selection. So here we are.

I also think Origin is responding to the anthropocentric view that prevails among folks who feel humans are inherently special.

When you deny the presence of 'awareness' in bacteria etc, and seems to be claiming that only humans are 'conscious' of their surroundings (and can slip into coma) - you appear to be caryying more of an anthropocentric view than anything else.

The discussion we are doing here is referred to as "pseudoscience", rightly or wrongly. The problem with such discussion is understandable. I have no business of examining "what (exactly) is life" - it is, so far, beyond human comprehension - there are >100 definitions, all individually stylized. But I am here to discuss the origin of cellular life – the discussion is not on why life appeared on the earth, but as to how it could have started. Though this task is not easy, this certainly falls in the purview of science, I believe. I am discussing such a thing here – not the “ethereal life” and “pseudoscientific conundrum” some people concoct to define life abstrusely.

Thus, it becomes relevant here to quote the points put forth “scientifically” by Fraggle Rocker sometime ago, regarding the general consensus of biologists to qualify life:


The consensus of biologists is that in order to qualify as alive, an object must have most of the following traits:Homeostasis Organization Metabolism Growth Adaptation Response to stimuli ReproductionResponse to stimuli is only one of these eight. Furthermore, if the object had all of the other seven but lacked this one, it might very well still be considered alive.

Fraggle Rocker had included evolution as apart of adaptation.

Now, let us examine this scientifically – Metabolism and Homeostasis can be grouped under the one heading; Growth, Organization and Reproduction and perhaps evolution can be grouped under one heading; and Adaptation and Response-to-stimulus can be grouped under one heading. But it must be stressed here that for life to continue all these components must be present. To illustrate this point we take the example of a seed in storage. For years a seed can be stored, before it starts germinating. All those years the seed must maintain some form of metabolism at the most basic level – if it ceases to run metabolism completely, it dies. The seed must also retain a potential to regenerate – it must have a capacity to grow to a full plant to fulfill the life’s cycle – if this potential disappears it will not grow again. The seed also must also be equipped with a mechanism to respond to favorable external environment – if its surroundings are conducive it must respond to the various stimuli (like water, air, light) and start adapting to the environment – this also appears to need a sensing mechanism. This mechanism has to be activated first, which in turn activates the other two mechanisms.

The scientific community has explored the first two mechanisms with great enthusiasm, and their study has progressed enormously. The last of these features – the exact mechanism of adaptation and response-to-stimuli (is there anything wrong when I say this is awareness?) – is also studied, but not to the same extent. We do not fully understand the mechanisms of adaptation. It became a taboo in the scientific community to discuss mechanisms of awareness. Like in the following:


And yet you want to entertain the idea that bacteria have a consciousness, etc.? No. That's an elixer that's had the label swapped from the bottle that contained plain old glucose....

The idea that cell motility can be linked to a consciousness is purely a mind game. It looks like something you see moving which seems to have a consciousness of some kind — your banjo pluckin raccoon or whatever else Sorry to bust your bubble, but since you seem to be gushing with self-esteem, I think no harm is done by simply telling you you're flat wrong.

A thorough examination of adaptive responses and the mechanisms of awareness is no pseudoscience and no philosophy.

Krishnagopal: Here is an interesting article . . . . re: brain functions/consciousness via quantum interactions: http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html

Krishnagopal: Here is an interesting article . . . . re: brain functions/consciousness via quantum interactions: http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~sreinis/quantum.html

Thank You, I have studied the article on "Quantum Approaches to Consciousness" from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I will go through your reference also - hope this clears a few facts.

When you deny the presence of 'awareness' in bacteria etc, and seems to be claiming that only humans are 'conscious' of their surroundings (and can slip into coma) - you appear to be caryying more of an anthropocentric view than anything else.

What a crazy spin to put on the word anthropomorphic. Let me get this straight: if I say a creature can't have a trait that I know I can't possess (as when unconscious), then this qualifies as anthropomorphic?



anthropomorphic
1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, especially to a deity.
2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: an anthropomorphic carving.

Note: I do not deny the presence of awareness in bacteria, because one can only deny what is established or believed true. Bacterial awareness is not believed true (other than by you). The correct word is reject, but the only thing I reject is your claim, because it's nothing more than a fantasy that exists in your mind. It has no bearing on the real world.

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.

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

Arioch: Can you visualize (try!) consciousness originating from quantum interactions with orgainc material? . . . I know . . . . the idea is pretty far outside-the-box . . .!Does consciousness mean reaction to stimulii.
Can it taste? can it smell? hear? see? feel? Communicate? which of the senses?

@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.

@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

What a crazy spin to put on the word anthropomorphic. Let me get this straight: if I say a creature can't have a trait that I know I can't possess (as when unconscious), then this qualifies as anthropomorphic?



Note: I do not deny the presence of awareness in bacteria, because one can only deny what is established or believed true. Bacterial awareness is not believed true (other than by you). The correct word is reject, but the only thing I reject is your claim, because it's nothing more than a fantasy that exists in your mind. It has no bearing on the real world.

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?

@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.

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

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?

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.

Prof Stanislav Reinis (Dept of Psychology, Univ of Waterloo) and others (2005) found that....

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.

sentience arises in a brain (and not just a brain stem, but a cortex and a whole lot 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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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



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



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?

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.



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

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



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).

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


The statement "the rest of the living world is as inert as rocks" appears a little preposterous.

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.



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.

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.

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?

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


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?

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?

You left out evolution. All living things evolve.

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.

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

Where do you think consciousness is 'lodged' in the case of a human being?

I think our consciousness is an emergent property, like a rainbow. A rainbow is much more than just raindrops, but without the raindrops, there is no rainbow. Similiarly, our consciousness is, IMO, the emergent property of the computations by the neurons in our nervous system and when that decomposes, so does the person.


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?

They are involutary and hence not a part of conscious self-awareness. Breathing can be controlled, so it is in a grey area.


Do you consider studying for exams a part of consciousness?

Yes, because that shows self-awareness, agenticity, intentionality and deliberated and directed conscious use of cognition, perception, memory and thought.

I think our consciousness is an emergent property, like a rainbow. A rainbow is much more than just raindrops, but without the raindrops, there is no rainbow. Similiarly, our consciousness is, IMO, the emergent property of the computations by the neurons in our nervous system and when that decomposes, so does the person.

They are involutary and hence not a part of conscious self-awareness. Breathing can be controlled, so it is in a grey area.


Yes, because that shows self-awareness, agenticity, intentionality and deliberated and directed conscious use of cognition, perception, memory and thought.

i very well appreciate the analogy drawn between rainbow and consciousness. It is usable.

"Self-awareness", yes it is't there. but it is not relevent right now as to "what is self".

But the neurons in the spinal cord (by the same above analogy) do sense a prick of the needle and respond too. I wanted to know whether this entitled "awareness" at least remotely?

i very well appreciate the analogy drawn between rainbow and consciousness. It is usable.

"Self-awareness", yes it is't there. but it is not relevent right now as to "what is self".

But the neurons in the spinal cord (by the same above analogy) do sense a prick of the needle and respond too. I wanted to know whether this entitled "awareness" at least remotely?

Awareness means to have a knowledge of. That means that the thing that is aware must be able to obtain, retain and process information. Moreover, it must be able to, by itself, reorganise, rearrange, learn or deduce more information from the imputs to be able to form a knowledge base. This is why computers and plants arent considered aware while cats and humans are.

Ps. For me, the self is the totality of all material constituents, their functions, properties and emergences that form a human body. Add an awareness to that and somewhere along the line would be consiousness.

Another interesting article in Scientfic American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shining-a-light-on-plants-quantum-secret

If plants (e.g., algae) can do it (quantum interactions) . . . why not neurons?

Awareness means to have a knowledge of. That means that the thing that is aware must be able to obtain, retain and process information. Moreover, it must be able to, by itself, reorganise, rearrange, learn or deduce more information from the imputs to be able to form a knowledge base. This is why computers and plants arent considered aware while cats and humans are.

Spinal neuron (chief player in spinal reflex) meets most of the above criteria.

It does obtain information from the surroundings – it senses that its nerve endings are stimulated (by a physical change around nerve ending resulted form of prick, in this case). (Nerve ending is the tip of the axon, which itself is a part of neuron)

It registers and retains the information, otherwise how can it act? Each stimulus must result in a molecular change and then only it can ‘fire’ an action potential. These molecular signatures are stored inside them if stimuli are given for a sufficient time or with sufficient intensity.

Process and reorganize information – it has to process the information so that it may do several of the following things –
1) it may send information to the motor neuron directly (the basis of reflex arc)
2) or it may send it to several motor neurons belonging to other areas such as trunk and upper limbs (eg to keep balance after the jerk)
3) it may also send to an intermediate inhibitory interneuron (called Renshaw cell) – so that we donot have an exaggerated response
4) it may send the impulse to cortical sensory neurons (so that more pain is felt),
5) it may also allow the impulse to ‘die out’ within it ( so that no pain is felt at cortex).
and possibly several other functions

These neurons can learn too – you keep on stimulating an area for some time, the neurons get ‘used to’ the input and after some time no action results.

This is interesting to know – the spinal reflexes (eg, knee jerk) are in fact exaggerated if the cortical control is lost, as sometimes occur in spinal cord injuries

Now can I say the spinal neurons do live and act on their own at least for sometime (in the absence of cortical control)? Can they be called to be aware of the surroundings, on their own, by themselves?

Another interesting article in Scientfic American:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=shining-a-light-on-plants-quantum-secret

If plants (e.g., algae) can do it (quantum interactions) . . . why not neurons?

Every single living cell on the earth (uni- or multicellular) has to be alert to its surroundings to get food, to protect itslf and to procreate. That is the way life is designed
That was a nice article, Thank you

@krishnagopal --


Every single living cell on the earth (uni- or multicellular) has to be alert to its surroundings to get food, to protect itslf and to procreate.

That needn't always have been the case. In the Earth's early history the organic compounds necessary for life would have been present in abundance and the need to move or do anything beyond simply allowing the laws of chemistry to unfold wouldn't have been necessary for an organism to survive.

@krishnagopal --
That needn't always have been the case. In the Earth's early history the organic compounds necessary for life would have been present in abundance and the need to move or do anything beyond simply allowing the laws of chemistry to unfold wouldn't have been necessary for an organism to survive.

Hardly. Even though we know very little of the primordial conditions, one thing is sure the atmosphere was not so conducive. The food was not plenty, on the other hand non-existent – there was no oxidizable substrates (eg sugar) in their surroundings. The early life had to depend on minerals for their energy (lithotrophs). Possibly, They could not even use sunlight as they were deep inside a ‘warm little pond’(phototrophs appeared much later).

Moreover, the conditions at that time were harsh – with bombarding meteorites, ever changing tectonics, damaging radiation (damages organic compounds readily), and of course without the carbon-cycle, nitrogen-cycle and all the “ecobalance” of today.

You can picture the early colony- as the organisms grow in a colony with certain resources, deep inside a pond, and they cannot stop proliferating (by whatever means) and had to fight for the food available.

After all, Abundance is no guard for avarice.

No, it was a fight all the time. Each cell had be aware of its surroundings to keep going. That was the primary requirement.

Hardly. Even though we know very little of the primordial conditions, one thing is sure the atmosphere was not so conducive. The food was not plenty, on the other hand non-existent – there was no oxidizable substrates (eg sugar) in their surroundings. The early life had to depend on minerals for their energy (lithotrophs). Possibly, They could not even use sunlight as they were deep inside a ‘warm little pond’(phototrophs appeared much later).

Moreover, the conditions at that time were harsh – with bombarding meteorites, ever changing tectonics, damaging radiation (damages organic compounds readily), and of course without the carbon-cycle, nitrogen-cycle and all the “ecobalance” of today.

You can picture the early colony- as the organisms grow in a colony with certain resources, deep inside a pond, and they cannot stop proliferating (by whatever means) and had to fight for the food available.

After all, Abundance is no guard for avarice.

No, it was a fight all the time. Each cell had be aware of its surroundings to keep going. That was the primary requirement.Please consider it just about proven that life started on Mercury. It was the incubator planet for this solar system. :)

@krishnagopal --


Hardly. Even though we know very little of the primordial conditions, one thing is sure the atmosphere was not so conducive.

While it is true that the atmosphere was not conducive to our kind of life, that's never been a stumbling block for life in the past. Just look at the thousands of extant species of extremophiles, they're thriving in environments that were previously considered completely hostile to life(including some like the tardigrade who can survive over an hour in hard vacuum with all that that entails). If life is capable of that now, in a very oxygen rich environment, who's to say that it wasn't back then?

In fact one of the hypotheses concerning abiogenesis is that it occurred near undersea vents, with the energy required being provided by the heat from the vent.


The food was not plenty, on the other hand non-existent – there was no oxidizable substrates (eg sugar) in their surroundings.

Which assumes that early life, some three point nine billion years ago, worked in the way that modern life does today. A rather bold assumption to make in the face of evidence to the contrary.


The early life had to depend on minerals for their energy (lithotrophs). Possibly, They could not even use sunlight as they were deep inside a ‘warm little pond’(phototrophs appeared much later).

And sunlight wasn't the only energy source available to them, it was(and still is) simply the most abundant, hence why life has evolved since then to use it as a source of energy.


Moreover, the conditions at that time were harsh – with bombarding meteorites, ever changing tectonics, damaging radiation (damages organic compounds readily), and of course without the carbon-cycle, nitrogen-cycle and all the “ecobalance” of today.

So the selective pressures applied to the organisms would have been tighter, this somehow proves that the first life forms were aware?


You can picture the early colony- as the organisms grow in a colony with certain resources, deep inside a pond, and they cannot stop proliferating (by whatever means) and had to fight for the food available.

Actually for the first billion or so generations the components necessary for replication were very likely to be incredibly common, leading to overpopulation and cannibalizing of neighbors for further replication. Again, this doesn't imply that the initial replicators were aware, they may have just been organic compounds who had a tendency(due to their physical shape) to rearrange nearby chemicals into copies of themselves. In fact given what we know of life and the universe this seems to be an increasingly likely scenario.


After all, Abundance is no guard for avarice.[quote]

But again, this doesn't make your case. This would have been a factor after the initial replicators had exhausted their supply of "food" and needed to prey on their neighbors to keep replicating.

[quote]No, it was a fight all the time.

This is simply your opinion, one that's not supported by the what we know.


Each cell had be aware of its surroundings to keep going.

Well sure, once the cell was around. However life didn't begin with the cell, that evolutionary innovation came later.


That was the primary requirement.

Wrong. The primary requirement for life was replication and the primary requirement for evolution(other than life, obviously) is heredity(imperfect replication with a high fidelity rate). Nowhere in there is awareness or consciousness required.

Please consider it just about proven that life started on Mercury.

alright bob! we will see what we can do about it.


It was the incubator planet for this solar system.

I just hope your hypothesis clicks

@krishnagopal --While it is true that the atmosphere was not conducive to our kind of life, that's never been a stumbling block for life in the past. Just look at the thousands of extant species of extremophiles, they're thriving in environments that were previously considered completely hostile to life(including some like the tardigrade who can survive over an hour in hard vacuum with all that that entails). If life is capable of that now, in a very oxygen rich environment, who's to say that it wasn't back then?

I agree with you that ‘lower organisms’ are capable of adaptation. The lower the organism in the phylogenetic rung the better is its adaptability.


In fact one of the hypotheses concerning abiogenesis is that it occurred near undersea vents, with the energy required being provided by the heat from the vent.

I myself think it possible that this point is right




Which assumes that early life, some three point nine billion years ago, worked in the way that modern life does today. A rather bold assumption to make in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Why should we assume that something very grossly different had occurred billions of years ago?

There is much unity in diversity. There is diversity (among various species) in procuring energy from the environment and its subsequent release into the surroundings. Some use minerals, some sunlight, some organic compounds etc. But there is considerable unity in intracellular mechanisms (the metabolic processes) which are ‘comparable’ in all the organisms – the intermediates used for the cellular metabolism are almost the same. The energy currency (ATP) is almost universal.

Almost all metabolic pathways across the biological world use ‘stereotyped’ substrates– same handed amino acids, same chiral sugars, same nucleic acids, similar metabolic pathways – what more evidence is needed to say that life’s processes were uniform all the time … from the start?



And sunlight wasn't the only energy source available to them, it was(and still is) simply the most abundant, hence why life has evolved since then to use it as a source of energy.

Because, We can see that sunlight is ubiquitous and reaches the earth continuously, whereas mineral sources deplete fast, and not so energy efficient


they may have just been organic compounds who had a tendency(due to their physical shape) to rearrange nearby chemicals into copies of themselves. In fact given what we know of life and the universe this seems to be an increasingly likely scenario.

If they were ‘just’ organic compounds with ‘a tendency to rearrange nearby chemicals into copies … without being aware of what they are doing?? This ‘molecular rearrangement’ would have happened repeatedly (and what more –much more randomly), and they were led by the forces of nature alone (and not by anything ‘self’).

In such a case of random rearrangement, the birth of an ‘organized life form’ would have been difficult. If this random rearrangement continued (without a direction) – we would have known a far more diverse ‘metabolic forms’ on the earth. But this is not the case with what we see now.

The marked ecological interdependence of various life forms from archaea to mammals also proves the point.

What we know of life is far more complex, than simple rearrangement.



Well sure, once the cell was around. However life didn't begin with the cell, that evolutionary innovation came later.

Of course life did not begin in a cell


Wrong. The primary requirement for life was replication and the primary requirement for evolution(other than life, obviously) is heredity(imperfect replication with a high fidelity rate). Nowhere in there is awareness or consciousness required.

But this is the snag today. A discussion of this ‘direction’ or ‘awareness’ or ‘what ever’ is a ‘dangerous proposition’ in the scientific elite. We are not used to discuss such abstract things in science. If pushed a little further all this sounds ‘philosophical’ or even spiritual or theological, and scientists shy away immediately. We feel comfortable with a ‘rational’ and lock-stepped approach to the problems in biology. Worst still is that if we do not recognize a problem or a paradox as such, and feel that we have already explained this and that and there is nothing more. I say that the mystery of life is also scientific