Post n. 14 (English)
LIVING ORGANISMS: Body, Brain, Mind
(First part)
The modern debate on the problem
mind-body begins in the 17th century with Descartes. In the four
centuries which followed, many philosophers and famous scientists have given
their contribution to the argument, and the debate continues.
In “Polvere vitale” 1995, Christian
De Duve writes: «Science and philosophy are such difficult disciplines that it
is practically impossible for a person to have a good formation in both of
them, except for in a bookish way, as an external observer, which is only a
modest substitute of a deep familiarity with the subject».
Let us leave the debate to
philosophes and famous scientists.
But then, why an article on this
argument?
In general, when the problem of the
origin of life is treated, one takes into consideration as a reference point
life as it is now, the body from its invisible part that is the molecular
level: nucleic acid, proteins, lipids. Looking at living organisms from their
visible side that is their behaviour could give us some indication useful to
understand their origin.
Before starting it is however
necessary to clear a point.
In common language, by the word Mind
one intends: memory, direction of the intellectual and practical process,
conscience. Such a definition, even if in daily practice it is referred to the
mind as a product of the human brain, it remains, however, a definition
scientifically open.
With the coming of the neurosciences,
the definition of Mind changes and becomes an activity of special cells: the
neurons. And in fact in the same essay De Duve adds: «Mind does not exist
without brain […]». Now, because the different function of the liver and the
brain are due to the different genes contained (activated) in the two organs,
the question becomes genetic. So Gay Marcus in “La nascita della mente” 2008,
informs us that «It is without doubt possible that 5000 different genes
contribute to form human intelligence and that only some hundreds of these vary
in such a way as to contribute to the differences between one person and
another.[…] the hereditary values tell us only how the differences in these few
genes are correlated to the differences in values like those of the IQ». And
so, when the gene or genes which determine the IQ (Intelligence Quotient) will
be identified, we shall be able, finally, to establish who, between human
beings, really possesses a Mind and who not. And as for me, let us hope that I
make it!
Armed like this, the definition of
Mind has become a Dogma which blocks research and creates, as we shall see,
incredible absurdities.
In 2005 Giorgio Vallortigara
publishes the result of his researches, included also in the essay “La mente
che scodinzola” 2011. He makes it evident that: «If that which is important for
living organisms is to survive and reproduce, natural selection must have
invented (as in fact it did) a variety of expedients and short cuts to the end
of more adequate behaviour in a certain ambience».
In the post n.13 “Darwin, us and the
problem of the origin of life”, we have made evident how the instinct of reproduction
seems contained inside the same biological structure which gave origin to life.
But for survival, what expedients and
what short cuts did natural selection invent for behaviour more adequate in a
certain ambience?
Vallortigara synthesises the result
of his research and writes: «In these years we have learned much on the Mind of
animals not human. Animals seem to be gifted with a basic equipment of
cognition for survival, which is then the same possessed by our species, a set
of specialized modules which consent to
interact with objects, both physical (inanimate) and social (animals), to place
them in space and time, to number them, and to make suppositions on their
properties and on their behaviour and in some circumstances, to use them as
instruments». Moreover: «The results hence suggest that, over and above human
beings, some other animals could have a mental representation of the future».
But only animals present this set of
modules specialized for survival? And if they are presented by other living
organisms, can we or not call it “basic equipment of cognition”?
In “L’origine delle teorie” (treated
in: Quattro saggi sulla scienza 2012, Le Scienze), Enrico Bellone, after having
made evident that: «There is no doubt that we more or less well adapt to our
domestic places exactly because we know how to number the things which surround
us, esteem the surfaces and volumes, reason in such a way that if
a certain thing happens, then a
given event can happen». A bit further he affirms: «It is difficult to
contradict, now tens of years have passed, that living organisms are capable of
communicating between themselves, and that the communicative ability needs
forms of intelligence. Thus it happens for example with hens. When a dog is
coming dose, a cockerel gives out a specific sequence of sound. The sequence is
different if, on the other hand, a hawk comes in view. Other sounds, in
conclusion, are propagated when our cockerel finds appetizing food, and again
others when the food is less interesting. And the hens which are around assume
different behaviour when they listen to those variable acoustic stimuli: They
assume it also if the stimuli are propagated not by a watchful cockerel but by
a microphone. […] When we explore these situations, we can demonstrate that the
cockerel does not act as a machine (or like a passive recipient to the inside
of which a stimulus causes a reaction) but as an organism gifted with a
program: “when you find good food if
a hen is around then give out the
calls”». He also recalls the incredible ability of the nutcracker: «Other
living organisms must, so as to survive, satisfy needs of orienting environing
and create maps. It is of a certain interest, on this question, the
relationship between a bird, which is called nutcracker, and the zones in which
the nutcracker live. This little bird, as Giorgio Vallortigara explains,
nourishes itself mainly of the seeds of conifers. Predicting winter it
accumulates an average of 30 000 seeds; not at
 |
asiagowebcam.com
|
one time but in groups of five
or six. The single groups are deposited in various biding places: about 5500
biding places. With bad weather the nutcracker goes to the biding place and
feeds itself».
Until here following Christian De
Duve “there is nothing without a brain”.
But Bellone goes further. After
having argued on the theory of the human knowledge by Popper he gives his
attention also to the plants: «We see them, for example, lose their leaves.
Usually we undervalue the fact that the mutations observable in these living
organisms precede the real winter. In
such a way an important aspect escapes us: plants preview a lowering of
temperature and a notable lowering in the intensity of light which they need to
live in the best way. The prevision is notable efficient, and functions also
because the ambiance variation are periodic: the winters are similar from one
year to another, and this induces waiting. To elaborate a prevision it is
necessary to dispose of sensorial aspects which measure, for example, the
tendency of lowering temperature of the niche. Our plants though they do not
have neurons, web feel the becoming
of a rigid climate and they behave as
though they were evaluating the change perceived in the scheme “if…then”: very
refined processes inside the bodies receive external stimuli. They translate
them in incorporate languages and predispose the right reactions.
In other occasions, I have already
insisted on such arguments. Particularly efficient from a didactic point of
view is the exemplary case of a wild potato, Solanum berthaulthii, which often attacked by certain aphides.
These are at their turn the prey of other organisms and when the attack progresses,
they emit and propagate in the ambiance around them very particular molecules
which are perceived by other aphides and interpreted as a signal of alarm which
creates a reaction of flight. Well, the potatoes attacked by the aphides,
produce and give out the same molecular message, in such a way as to dissuade
the attackers by a lie communicated by the subterfuge of the capacity which
consists in imitating the language of others.
It would be unforgivable, even in
the seat of the theory of knowledge, to lay in undertone this state of things.
Vegetables do not have neuron webs, or such a thing of brain. And it would be
extravagant to concede to plants a repertoire of mental states or a conscience.
In fact vegetables have languages whose basic signs are ions and molecules,
thanks to which they transfer informations
both at their own interior and externally, in such a way as to establish
relationships with other vegetables».
Decidedly in a new dimension Stefano
Mancuso e Alessandra Viola introduce us in “Verde Brillante”2013, The authors,
illustrated also the results of research after having made it evident how the
plants not only are in possession of our own senses (view, hearing, olfaction,
taste and touch) certainly developed according to vegetable nature and not
human but they possess at least another 15, arguing: «As we well know, in fact,
every plant uninterruptedly registers a great number of ambient parameters
(light, humidity, chemical quantities gradient, the presence of other plants or
animals, electromagnetic field, gravity etc) and on the basis of these data it
is called to take decisions which concern the search for food, competition,
defence, relationship with other plants and with animals: an activity difficult
to imagine without introducing the concept of intelligence» The authors also treat carnivorous plants,
which Darwin called insectivorous plants, plants of which
 |
fioriefoglie,tgcom24.it
|
about six hundred are
now known. These make evident the process of evolution which led the plants to
nourish also on meat and their sophisticated strategies to capture their prey.
And further on, after having made it evident that plants do not have a brain at
least as we intend it, and after having asked himself the question if the brain
is really the only seat of “production” of intelligence, the authors affirm:
«In plants the cerebral functions are not separate from the physical but
included in every single cell: a real and proper living example of that which
students of Artificial Intelligence call embodied
agent, that is an intelligent agent which interacts with the world through
its own physical body».
S. Mancuso and A. Viola, after
having made it evident that Darwin was also an extraordinary botanic report how
he wrote on the subject: «It is not an exaggeration to say that the point of
the root, thus gifted with sensitivity and which has the power to direct the
movement of the frontier regions, acts like the brain of an inferior animal,
the brain being situated in the anterior part of the body, receives impressions
from the sensitive organs and directs the different movements».
Hence, plants do not have a brain,
at least as we intend it. Yet, just as animals seem to be gifted with a basic
equipment of cognition for survival, certainly oriented towards animal nature,
one cannot deny that also plants have a cognitive basic equipment for survival,
this time oriented towards vegetable nature.
All this enter into collision with
the dogmatic vision of the neurosciences. In fact Antonio Damasio in his essay
“Il sè viene alla mente” 2012 when he defines the conceptual picture of his
hypotheses affirms: «Organisms generate the mind thanks to the activity of
special cell –neurons- […] ». And with reference to the success of our remote
ancestor he continues: «What opened the path to complex creatures like us? With
the scope of our appearance, an important ingredient seems to have been movement something of which plants do
not dispose, but with which we and some other animals are gifted. Plants can
have tropism: some are able to orientate themselves searching for the sun or
avoid shade and some, like the carnivorous, succeed in capturing distracted
insects. No plant however can uproot itself and go and seek a better
environment somewhere else: the Gardner must do it for it. The tragedy of the
plants, which however they ignore, is that their cells, surrounded by a rigid
pane, like a corset, will never be able to modify their form in a sufficient
way to become neurons. Plants do not have nervous cells. Hence, they will never
have a mind».
However, Antonio Damasio, as we have
seen in the preceding post, (already quoted), through homeostasis, attributes
to the single eukaryotic cell, concepts of desire, will, intentions and ends
which we associate to the human mind and argues: «It has in fact been found
that living creatures completely without brain, even single cells, present
forms of behaviour apparently intelligent and directed to an end: this also is
a scarcely appreciated fact».
In truth these opinions on the
behaviour of the single cell Konrad Lorenz “L’etologia” 1978, had already
expressed them. In the chapter “Mechanisms which elaborate an information
momentary” with reference to the amoeboid behaviour (the amoeba is a
unicellular organism), writes: «In its natural ambiance, that is in a liquid of
culture in which it can live permanently, the amoebae appears to be
extraordinarily adaptable in its behaviour, even to the point of intelligence.
It avoids damaging effect by a fleeing “of fear”, it comes close to favourable
stimuli; englobes and eats “with avidity” an object right. If it were as big as
a dog, says Jennings, one of the best experts of protozoa, one would not
hesitate to attribute to it a subjective experience».
Hence the amoebas are capable of reasoning,
of logical inferences. If they
perceive the presence of food, then
they direct themselves in the direction of the nutrition; if the ambiance is hostile, then
they go away. Unfortunately for it however amoeba is not big like a dog and
hence its apparent intelligence is only a mechanical question. This, as Lorenz
explains us, is due to the different capacity of the ectoplasm to react
selectively to two different categories of stimuli. In the same chapter, Lorenz
writes: «It seems that we do not know of a unicellular capable of locomotion
but without orientation in space», and that the paramecium inside a “suspended
drop” gives phobic reactions. It is not clear how all this can be explained as
a reaction caused by a stimulus.
However Jennigs has also carried out
an experiment which concerns the Stentor, which Lorenz has not retained to take
into consideration.
To quote an author does not mean
sharing his ideas, from the essay of Rupert Sheldrake,
 |
www.microscopy-uk.org.uk
|
“Le illusioni della
scienza”2013, was extracted the following example: «Every Stentor is a cell
with the form of a trumpet, covered with a line of subtle vibrant air, called
cilia.[…] These cells are fixed at their base thanks to a “foot” and the
inferior part of the cell is surrounded by a tube similar to mucus. If the
surface to which it is fixed is lightly shaken, Stentor shrinks rapidly to the
inside of the tube. If nothing also happens, after a half a minute, it again
extends and the cilia take up their activity again. If the stimulus is
repeated, the animal does not shrinks any more, but continues its normal
activities: this behaviour is not the result of a fatigue, because the cell
reacts shrinking if a new stimulus presents, like being touched (H. S. Jennings).
The cellular membranes of Stentor are crossed by an electric charge, like the
nervous cells. When they are stimulated, a potential of action dilates itself
on the surface of the cell, very much like a nervous impulse and this causes
the cell to shrink (C. D. Wood). When Stentor gets used to it, the receptors on
the cellular membrane become less sensitive to the mechanical stimulation and
the action potential does not go off (C. D. Wood). As the Stentor is formed of
a unique cell, its memory cannot be explained in function of changes in the
nervous terminations, or synapsis, because it does not have any».
This sort of behaviour is called
habituation, that is familiarization to the stimuli and it is present in
animals and also in man. If a person goes to live near a railway or near a
street with much traffic, at the beginning, he is disturbed but afterwards he
gets used to it and does not take any notice. It is a fundamental form of
memory because it permits us to adapt to the ambiance.
In other words Stentor has a memory.
Stentor remembers.
Hence we find ourselves face to face
with unicellular organisms which are able to orient themselves in space, have
reasoning, scopes, intentions, will power, desires, memories, behaviour “apparently”
intelligent, that is a basic equipment of cognition, concept typical of our
mind; unicellular organisms which know how to look after themselves. A
cognitive baggage much more simplified than that of plants or animals, but it
is what they need for their survival; but Stentor does not have neurons.
And then, from where comes this
basic equipment of cognition?
Christian De Duve, in the chapter
“Il funionamento della mente” (quoted work) argues as follows: «In the known
universe this is not a mystery greater than that of the human mind, with the
exception of the universe itself. Born of the brain, from which it depends in a
critical way in every instant […], mind is without the least doubt the product
of neurons. […] It is mind to generate our thoughts, reasoning, intuitions,
reflexions, inventions, design, beliefs, doubts, imaginations, fantasies,
desires, intentions, displeasures, frustrations, dreams and nightmares. Mind
reminds us of our past and form our plans for the future; It weights, decides
and commands». De Duve has forgotten the “will”, very dear to Damasio.
But if the unicellular organisms and
plants do not have neuron, then the problem is: in these organisms, where do
the concepts typical of our mind come from? And then really, do we have
certitude on the mind?
Christian De Duve, after having
quoted some scientists and philosophers who work on the problem of mind,
continues: «These few quotations should clear the fact that research on the
mind is still in the embryonal state. This situation does not depend on the
lack of study. In recent years tens of books have appeared on the argument,
written by neuroscientists, linguists, specialists in computer and
philosophers, not to mention theologises. Unfortunately the theses sustained
are almost as many as the authors, also because the ideology has a role more
important in human psychology than in other scientific fields».
In other words, no one knows how the
brain gives origin to mind. No one knows if only the conscious mind of humans
exists and if also conscious minds related to the grade of evolution of an
organism in a determined ambiance. No one has demonstrated that a brain is
necessary to give origin to a mind. Now, De Duve’s essay is written in 1995 and
it does not seem that in the last two decades these problems have been
resolved. Certainly we could expect that famous scientists and philosophers
could resolve the question, but, if as De Duve writes, ideology has an
important role in this research, we risk waiting another four centuries.
In the meanwhile we have a problem
and while waiting we would procure, through an escamotage, a simple explanation
and, just so as not to irritate anyone, also temporary.
Without wanting to enter in the
field of philosophy, of which we have neither the competence nor the desire, we
start only with the fact, with the ascertainment that concepts typical of our
mind are possessed also by organisms which have no brain. And so the problem
is: what generates in unicellular organisms, eukaryotes, reasoning, scopes,
intentions, will, desires, memories, behaviour “apparently intelligent and the
capacity of orientating itself in space, concepts typical of our mind?
In “La felicità della ricerca”2013,
Shimon Edelmann, after having argued on the idea that cognition is calculus,
writes: «Among the most synthetic descriptions of the nature of the human mind,
the one I prefer is that of Marvin Minsk, mathematician and informatics: “Mind
is that which does the brain”. Having given a look at the principals of that
which is mind (a bunch of calculations at the service of the prevision) and
that which makes the brain (execute those calculations), we can appreciate the word
of Minsk, but we can also make present that it gives an interpretation very
fascinating: if that which the brain does can be done with other means, then
can exist a mind also without the need of brain. To reconcile ourselves with
this tremendous affirmation, but true,[…]». And further ahead: «Because the
same calculations can be done with different means. The existence of minds not
biological is a concrete possibility». Hence, let us see if we understand
something: we are disposed to give to our manufactures the capacity of having a
mind but we refuse to give a mind not only to unicellular organisms but also to
plants. No computer can ever equal the capacities of a Stentor but this last is
considered an insignificant microorganism whereas the computer has the status
of “electronic brain”. And yet these microorganisms have scopes, intentions,
will power, desires, memories, reasoning, behaviour “apparently” intelligent
and they know how to orient themselves in space, that is they have a basic
cognitive equipment, concepts typical of our mind which no computer has. Caged
by dogma and ideology, for microorganisms expressions like schemes of the sort
“if…then” are used, or else concepts like: reasoning, languages and apparent
intelligent, but we can reduce everything to a mechanism and if it is not found
one supposes or keep silent, but we are disposed to accept minds which are not
biological.
We do not know if Stentor and plants
have a conscience of their own, but we ask ourselves: how can an organism
survive if, in this way, it is not conscious of the world that is around it?
Stentor and plants have: memory, they direct and resolve intellectual processes,
practical processes, and perhaps they also have a conscience.
Stentor and plants are all of this.
And so, let us free ourselves of the
cages, and so paraphrasing Shimon Edelmann: if
what the brain does can be done by
other means, then the unicellular
organisms, the eukaryote, and all the pluricellular organisms which are not
gifted with a brain are in possession of a mind. What are these “other means”
we do not yet know, but to only one its mind, simple or complex, just enough
for its survival.
And so, Stentor and plants have a
mind.
Hence, going from the unicellular
organisms, the eukaryote, and then to the pluricellular up to the superior
organisms ( in the sense of more complex), like plants and animals it seems
that those no life without a basic cognitive equipment, without a mind. In the
scene of life, mind appears even without the necessity of a brain.
Mind must have been an emergent
propriety, in the meaning given to “emergence” by Ernst Mayr in “L’unicità
della biologia”2005: «The appearance of unpredicted characteristics in complex systems».
«This does not include any implication of a metaphysical type». «Often in
complex systems properties appear which are not evident (and they cannot be
predicted) not even if we know the single components of these systems».
Hence mind is already present in the
unicellular organisms the eukaryote, and in the simpler organisms? And then,
when does mind appear in the scene of life?
Giovanni
Occhipinti
Translated
by Silvia Occhipinti
LIVING ORGANISMS, BACTERIA: Body, Brain, Mind
(Second Part)
As we have shown in the first part,
a basic cognitive equipment, that is the Mind, is present not only in the multicellular
organisms, but also in the unicellular
organisms, the eukaryotes. But what can we say about more simple organisms? And
then, when does mind appear on the scene of life?
Unicellular organisms like the
amoeba, the paramecium, Stentor and all the pluricellular organisms are made up
of eukaryotic cell. The unicellular eukaryotes appeared in the earth about 1,8
milliards of years ago and they were the first organisms really independent.
The eukaryotic cell has a very
complex structure . Inside it, it contains a nucleus, where can be found the
genetic material associated with proteins. The eukaryotic cell also contains
some thousand organelles mainly of two different
types like peroxisomes and mitochondria and, in the vegetal cell also the
chloroplasts. The structure of the cell is maintained by a complex structure of
microtubules.
There exist cells much more simple
than the eukaryote: the prokaryotes. The prokaryotes do not contain a nucleus
and the genetic material is in direct contact with the rest of cell. They do
not contain organelles and microtubules and their cell is much smaller and
simple than the eukaryotic cell. The diameter of the prokaryote is about 20
times smaller than the eukaryote, and its volume is 10 000 times smaller. To
have a more eloquent image, the eukaryotic cell could contain inside it about
10 000 prokaryotes. The prokaryotes appeared on the earth about 3,5 milliards
of years ago, and for about 2 milliards they were dominators uncontested of the planet.
The direct descendent of the
primitive prokaryotes are today bacteria and cyanobacteria, and it is thought
that their organic mass is at least the double of all other living organisms on
our planet. Bacteria and cyanobacteria are the smallest living organisms that
we know. Smaller than the bacteria are the virus. For the greater part of
biologists virus are not living organisms, but this is another discourse.
Hence there exist living organisms
smaller than Stentor: bacteria. But how bacteria live, and what is their
behaviour?
Bacteria can be found at the
planktonic state, that is as independent cells in a watery ambiance, or in the
sessile state, where the cells are attached, the one beside the other, on a
solid surface where they give origin to colonies.
We are in august of the long ago
1976, Julius Adler publishes in Le Scienze “La chemiosensibiltà dei batteri”.
Adler informs us that already at the beginning of the twentieth century, it was
known that bacteria are attracted by nutritive substances and repelled by
damaging substances. And with respect to the swimming behaviour of the
bacteria, he presented the studies conducted by Berg and Koshland, and by
Koshland and others, on Escherichia coli and he writes: «[…]The final result is
that the bacteria thickens close to the source of the recall substance, and far
from that of the repellent substance.[…] these effects on the movements of the
bacteria are determined not only by a spatial gradient (for example a higher
concentration of the recall substance on the right part with respect to the
left), but also by temporal gradients (for example a higher concentration administered
a second afterwards)».
Adler who in 1969 had already
discovered the chemosensory of bacteria, studying bacteria in the plankton
state (that is as independent cells in a watering ambiance), in conclusion
writes: «In the end, if we enter into the field of the bacterial “psychology”,
we put in the presence of bacteria a capillary tube containing not only a
recall substance, but also a substance which repels. In this way the bacteria
could choose if they would enter or not into the capillary. Their “decision” is
dependent on the concentrations with respect to the substance of attracting and
that of repelling. The mechanism which permits “taking a decision” in a
situation of “conflict” like this one is
still unknown, but one can say that bacteria are able, in a way, to
integrate multiple sensorial stimuli.
[…]. In the same way, bacteria are attracted by heat, but not if the warm
solution contains a fairly strong repellent. In these cases, the bacteria must
integrate, or elaborate, two sensorial informations: the temperature and the
chemical substance.
 |
www.il sussidiario.it
|
The basic elements which render
possible the behaviour in a superior organism, are hence present also in a
single cell of bacteria.[…]. Obviously there must be important differences; for
example, as the bacteria are independent cells, the synaptic action between a
cell and another, which is so important in determining the behaviour in the
more complex organisms, cannot probably realize itself in them, at least at cellular level».
We learn in this way that bacteria
move between schemes “if…then”, have cognition of space and time, they resolve
conflictual situations integrating multiple sensorial stimuli and they
elaborate divers sensorial information, that is: bacteria reason. And all this
already configures like a basic cognitive equipment.
Adler writes that bacteria are
independent cells and synaptic action can cannot be realized between one cell
and another. But as we have said, over
the plankton state, these microorganisms
can live at the sessile state, where the cells are attached, the ones beside
the others, on a solid surface giving origin to colonies.
What is, in the animal world the
social group?
The term was invented by Ernst Mayr.
In “L’unicità della biologia”2005 Mayr affirms: «[…] the group which has
success behaves like an all-one and is, in its unity, the favourite entity of
selection». The earth squirrels, for example, dispose of a system of sentinels
which, in the presence of predators, emit signals and warn all the other
members of the group of a nearby danger. And so, one is in the presence of a
social group when one has: interaction between its components, subdivision of
work, cooperation and hence communicative capacity.
What is the behaviour of the
bacteria at sessile state?
Between 1970 and 2000 communication
in bacteria was discovered and studied. As Richard Losick and Dale Kaiser
report in “La comunicazione nei batteri”1997: «[…]it was mainly believed that
the single members of a colony were essentially rigid individualists, dedicated
to themselves and not very communicative to they similar. Today instead it
seems that the greater part of the bacteria, if not all, communicate with their
neighbours». But not only this, as the authors inform us, bacteria “converse”
also with plants and animals, emitting chemical signals and reacting to them.
It is opportune to remember that according to Enrico Bellone (already quoted in
the first part): «It is hardly confutable, now for decades, that living
organisms are capable of communicating one with another, and that communicative
ability require forms of intelligence».
 |
| www.taringa.net |
On the sessile state, from
the middle of the ‘90’s, new knowledge was added, which has changed the opinion
of many biologists on bacteria.
As J. W. Casterton and Philp S. Stewart expose in “Combattere i Biofilm” Le Scienze 2001, the study of bacteria begins at the end of the 19th century when the theory of the germ of Robert Koch was declared valid. According to the authors the researches, worked out for a century in all the laboratories in the world, were based on presumptions not completely exact, because bacteria were imagined like separate cells. That is, it was thought that bacteria led a free and independent life, even if inside colonies. And the authors write: «But this image was linked to the way in which researchers usually examine microorganisms: observing on the microscope cells in culture suspended in a little drop of liquid. It is an easy process from an operative point of view, but not on the whole appropriate, because these experimental conditions do not at all correspond to those of the ambiance in which microorganisms are effectively to be found living». In other world around the middle of ’90’s it was discovered that if bacteria were to be found in a laboratory cultivation, with food at disposition, these could live independently or else they organize themselves in colonies attached to solid surface. In natural ambiance, where their survival is threatened, bacteria organize themselves in micro colonies, held together and protected by very complex and resistant film called “Biofilm”. The bacteria which can be found in cultivation in a laboratory rich in nutrition do not give origin to a “Biofilm”.
As J. W. Casterton and Philp S. Stewart expose in “Combattere i Biofilm” Le Scienze 2001, the study of bacteria begins at the end of the 19th century when the theory of the germ of Robert Koch was declared valid. According to the authors the researches, worked out for a century in all the laboratories in the world, were based on presumptions not completely exact, because bacteria were imagined like separate cells. That is, it was thought that bacteria led a free and independent life, even if inside colonies. And the authors write: «But this image was linked to the way in which researchers usually examine microorganisms: observing on the microscope cells in culture suspended in a little drop of liquid. It is an easy process from an operative point of view, but not on the whole appropriate, because these experimental conditions do not at all correspond to those of the ambiance in which microorganisms are effectively to be found living». In other world around the middle of ’90’s it was discovered that if bacteria were to be found in a laboratory cultivation, with food at disposition, these could live independently or else they organize themselves in colonies attached to solid surface. In natural ambiance, where their survival is threatened, bacteria organize themselves in micro colonies, held together and protected by very complex and resistant film called “Biofilm”. The bacteria which can be found in cultivation in a laboratory rich in nutrition do not give origin to a “Biofilm”.
 |
| woundsinternational.wordpress.com |
After another five years of
research, the mechanism of communication of the bacteria were so complex that a
new article on Le Scienze 2005, by Cristina Valsecchi has an emblematic title,
“La vita sociale dei batteri”. In this article it is shown how according to the
species and the ambiance conditions, the “quorum sensing” regulates the much
different functions of the bacteria: the exchange of genetic material, the
mobility of the cells, the synthesis of the biofilm the production of toxic
substances, the communication and the cooperation not only between cells of the
same specie but also between bacteria of different species. Cristina Valsecchi
reports what one of the greatest experts of biofilm in the world affirms,
Roberto Kolter: «[…] in laboratory, cultivated in a test-tube in a favourable
ambiance, rich in nourishing substances, the bacteria behave like isolated and
independent cells, they do not have any reason to interact. It is in difficult
conditions that microorganisms aggregate and make a common front to ensure
their own survival and their reproduction. […] The greater part of the
pathogenic agents of man form biofilm in the organism of the hosts infected […]».
Moreover, adds the author: «In the biofilm, unicellular microorganisms undergo
transformations which bring them to specialize themselves. The colony assumes
the characteristics of a multi-cellular organism». And Kolter adds: «The
specialisation has an important role also in the development of resistance to
pharmacies: the bacteria which form the upper stratus in a biofilm are the
first to be joined by the pharmacies. With right chemical messengers warn the
under strata of microorganisms which have time to activate molecular defence on
the membranes of the cells to overcome the attack».
Around 2006 various technologies
were created to cultivate biofilm in laboratory. As we are informed by Joe J.
Harrison and Raymond J, Turner in “Biofilm” Le Scienze 2006: «One of this uses
a rotating disc placed in the culture broth in which has been injected a
bacteria colony. The force given by the pressure of the fluid provoked by the
rotation stimulates the formation of a biofilm on disc». So, also in laboratory
cultivation, as soon as the ambiance becomes hostile, the bacteria give origin
to a protective screen, the biofilm.
Harrison and Turner admit however
that: «To say the truth, not everyone agrees on the fact that the biofilm are
the main organisation that bacteria assume in nature. The greatest part of the
methods in laboratory now used analyse microorganisms cultivated in a plankton
form».
And important results have been
obtained also by studying bacteria, in laboratory, in the sessile state.
Hanna Kuchment in “Il batterio piu’
intelligente”, Le Scienze 2011, reports what Eshel Ben-Jacob affirms on a study
of colonies of Paenibacillus vortex
made to grow in a capsule of Petri: «When they act together, these microscopic
organisms can perceive the ambiance, elaborate information, resolve problems
and decide in a way of prospering in difficult ambiance».
And Hanna Engelberg-Kulka and colleagues
in “PLoS Biology” (from Le Scienze on line) have discovered that bacteria have
two systems of programmed death (Apoptosis). One of these systems depends on
the cellular density and it primes in case of alimentary crisis. Such a
mechanism determines the death of a sufficient number of bacteria to guarantee
to the survivors the necessary primary material.
Well, the research carried out in
the last ten years on bacteria now widely use terms like: communication, cooperation,
languages, social behaviour, intelligence, information, altruism; it seems that
one is reading articles on “psicologia contemporanea”. To all this it is
necessary to add that the bacteria move according to schemes if…then and they have in their way
knowledge of space and time, they resolve conflictual situations and elaborate
different sensorial information.
To be precise, in the planktonic
state the bacteria have a basic cognitive equipment. In the sessile state more
than presenting a basic cognitive equipment, the bacteria have a behaviour like
the behaviour of social groups which can be met with between animals.
But bacteria do not have a brain!
As we have already said before, not
wanting to enter into a field of philosophy of which we do not have either the
competence or the desire, we are concerned only with facts, with the
ascertainment that concepts typical of our mind are possessed also by organisms
which do not have a brain.
So the question is, what generates
in the prokaryotes: reasoning, communication, languages, intelligence,
information, altruism, and social behaviour, concept typical of our mind?
In the first part we have already
shown, as Shimon Edelmann, after having evidenced that mind is a bunch of
calculus, at the service of prediction and that the brain makes those calculus,
concludes: «if that which the brain does can be done with other means, then a
mind can exist also without the need of brain».
And then, still paraphrasing Shimon
Edelmann: if that which the brain does can be done with other means, then the
bacteria, even if they do not have a brain, are gifted with a mind.
What these “other means” are, we do
not yet know, but the prokaryotes are in possession of a mind, just as much as
is necessary for their survival.
And then, starting with the bacteria
and going on with the unicellular eukaryotes organisms up to the complex
organisms like plants and animals, it seems that there is not life without a
basic cognitive equipment, there is no survival without a mind, and to everyone
its mind.
To conclude, all living organisms
have a mind and in the scene of life, the mind appears without the necessity of
brain.
Mind must have been an emergent
propriety, in the meaning given to “emergence” by Ernst Mayr in “L’unicità
della biologia”2005: «The appearance of unpredicted characteristics in complex
systems». «This does not include any implication as a metaphysical type».
«Often in complex systems properties appear which are not evident (and they
cannot be predicted) not even if we know the single components of these
systems».
But when mind appears in the story
of life, what are the “other means” which give origin and why does mind appear?
Giovanni
Occhipinti
Translated
by Silvia Occhipinti
LIVING ORGANISMS
Third Part
When does Mind appears in the history of life?
But on the scene of life, when does
mind appear and what are those “other means” which give origin to Mind?
With reference to the capacity of
forming Biofilm C. and S. in “Combattere i Biofilm” Le Scienze 2001, after
having made it clear that only around half of the nineties the strategy of
survival of the bacteria in natural ambiance was understood, they write (the
underlining is mine): «Looking backward, it is very surprising the fact that it
took so much time to decide and consider the way in which the bacteria
effectively live. After all the bacteria biofilm are to be found everywhere: the
dental plate, the muddy film on a rock moistened by a creek and the mucilage which appear in a vase of
flowers after two or three days, these are some examples particularly familiar».
And they affirm: «In fact, the genetic difference of the microorganisms capable
of forming similar structures and the enormous variety of ambience which can be
invaded by these microorganisms make us think that this capacity must be a very
antique strategy for the proliferation of microorganisms»
But how old?
Strong indications, in this
direction, we can have them from the study of antique fossils.
As we have already seen in preceding
articles, the experiments of prebiotic chemistry like Miller’s have made
certain that going from simple molecules (like methane, ammonia, water,
hydrogen, oxides of carbon etc.) and with the application of energy, a greet
number of organic substances were formed. It is with these organic substances,
through a process which we have not yet well understood, that the first living
organisms have had their origin. Since the ambiance was rich in organic
substances, one can think that the first forms of life were heterotroph that is
microorganisms that nourished themselves on substances that could be found in
the ambiance around them. One can also think that these organisms very rapidly
gave origin to autotroph organisms that is organisms like the cyanobacteria,
which synthesize themselves the substances of nutrition. If this were not so,
when the alimentary stores were exhausted, they would be extinct and with them
life itself. How rapid was this apparition, it is not given to us to know,
perhaps a thousand years or a million, but certainly the cyanobacteria, if not
really the first are very antique organisms and it is thanks to them that life has been able to prosper.
In a place in Australia called North
Pole, which is part of the Pilbara Block were found, in 1976,
stratified
structure formed of small granules of limestone and silicates. Such structures
called Stromatolites, were dated and they come from about 3, 5 milliards of
years ago.
 |
| Wikipedia (by Ruth Allison) |
Modern stromatolites can be found at
Shark Bay in Australia. In the upper part of these stratified structures live
communities of microorganism, which secrete mucilage. In particular, the upper stratus is occupied by cyanobacteria
that is autotroph, which procure their food by photosynthesis. The stratus
immediately underneath is occupied by sulphobacteria, these also autotroph. Finally,
the last stratus is occupied by heterotroph anaerobic bacteria, that is
bacteria which can live only in the absence of oxygen and feed on substances
produced by the autotroph. It is
believed that the antique Stromatolites, which go back to 3,5 milliards of
years ago, were formed from sediments and from the activity of bacterial
colonies like the modern ones. In the zone of North Pole, in a rocky unity
known as the Apex flint and dated 3,47 milliards of years ago, in 1986 J. William
Schopf has discovered the most antique fossils known until today and called
“Apex fossils”. Schopf has published the result of his research in 1993, he has
taken and commented his discovery, with a more amole vision, in an essay, “La
culla della vita” 2003. In this essay he writes: «The fossil cells, analysed on
the microscope at a high resolution in thin petrographic
sections or in thin residues resistant to acids, often show characteristics of dimension, form, cell structures and aspect of the colony practically the same as those of microorganisms actually alive». And «Unlike the filaments of the Proterozoic, these “float” variously placed like raisins in a slice of fruit-cake, in thick masses filiform of that which originally was a mucilage gelatinous. Many prokaryotes and almost all the cyanobacteria secrete mucilage from their cells, but the Apex community is the only one known in which microorganisms lived included in such voluminous masses. Since it is the only microbic community known in rocks so antique, it is impossible to say if the secretion of abundant mucilage was typical». With reference to the ambiental scene, he writes: «Because the distance Earth-Moon was less, the Earth rotated more rapidly, the days were shorter, the tides more strong and the storm also. The heavens were of a foggy steel grey, obscured by sand storms, volcanic clouds and subtle rests of rocks lifted by the bombardment of meteors. […] Because of the almost total absence of free oxygen, the atmospheric ozone (O3), capable of absorbing the ultraviolet rays, was still scarce, and the surface of the Earth was immersed in an ultraviolet light, mortal to the first form of life. The organisms yet had to learn to face this hostile ambiance […] » This mucilage according to Schopf: « […] has had a part in helping the first microorganisms in evolution to face an ambiance hard and inhospitable».
 |
| www.bmanuel.org |
sections or in thin residues resistant to acids, often show characteristics of dimension, form, cell structures and aspect of the colony practically the same as those of microorganisms actually alive». And «Unlike the filaments of the Proterozoic, these “float” variously placed like raisins in a slice of fruit-cake, in thick masses filiform of that which originally was a mucilage gelatinous. Many prokaryotes and almost all the cyanobacteria secrete mucilage from their cells, but the Apex community is the only one known in which microorganisms lived included in such voluminous masses. Since it is the only microbic community known in rocks so antique, it is impossible to say if the secretion of abundant mucilage was typical». With reference to the ambiental scene, he writes: «Because the distance Earth-Moon was less, the Earth rotated more rapidly, the days were shorter, the tides more strong and the storm also. The heavens were of a foggy steel grey, obscured by sand storms, volcanic clouds and subtle rests of rocks lifted by the bombardment of meteors. […] Because of the almost total absence of free oxygen, the atmospheric ozone (O3), capable of absorbing the ultraviolet rays, was still scarce, and the surface of the Earth was immersed in an ultraviolet light, mortal to the first form of life. The organisms yet had to learn to face this hostile ambiance […] » This mucilage according to Schopf: « […] has had a part in helping the first microorganisms in evolution to face an ambiance hard and inhospitable».
Hence, 3,5 milliards of years ago
the first organisms produced mucilage,
that is Biofilm. But the production of Biofilm is active by the “Quorum
sensing” which, as we have seen in the second part of the article, regulates
the most different functions of the bacteria: the exchange of genetic material,
the mobility of the cells, the synthesis of biofilm, the production of toxic
substances, communication and cooperation not only between the same species but
also between bacteria of different species.
Hence the microorganism, already 3,5
milliards of years ago, lived like bacteria live today, and in fact Schopf,
with respect to the evolution of bacteria, adds: «In simple words we believe
that the cyanobacteria have maintained the status quo, with very little
modifications from when they irrupted on the scene milliards of years ago». And
he called this type of evolution ipobraditely.
Hence, he takes up again the opinion
already expressed by the famous palaeontologist Elso S. Barghoorn who, in an
article of 1971 “I fossili più antichi” Le Scienze, affirmed: «All the
organisms whose genetic material is dispersed inside the cell and whose reproduction
is not conditioned by the recombination of the genes of the progenitors are
genetic conservative. In organisms of this type the rare mutations, instead of
being transmitted, when they are useful, are eliminated in a few generations».
William Schopf moreover in chapter 8
with regard to the fossil documentation of the Precambrian, after having shown
that these fossils are mainly of a spherical form or with filaments ribbon-like,
adds: «The spherical fossils can be found alone, in couples or in colonies made
up of some unity, of hundreds or also thousands of cells, and they are often
surrounded by one or more strata of a subtle membrane, a residues of capsules
of mucilage of revetment».
So the precursors of bacteria
already 3,5 milliards of years ago lived like today bacteria live: in the
planktonic state, that is like free cells in a water surrounding; in the
sessile state, that is one beside the other forming colonies. And for what
regards the ribbon-like filament, after having made it clear that the bacteria
are wrapped in a sheathing mucilaginous tubular of wrapping and that often is
conserved only the sheathing with a spaghetti form he writes: «[…] One observes
that all fossils or almost can re-enter in modern types, and even 40% is not
distinguishable from precise living cyanobacteria. All the form of the colonies
known in the modern groups are present in the fossils and the tubular fossil sheathing
are identical as to form, dimension and structure up to the respective living
species».
As we have said, modern
stromatolites can be found at the Shark Bay in Australia. It is believed that
also the antique stromatolites were formed from sediments and from the activity
of bacteria colonies like the modern ones.
Schopf illustrates the formation of
the stromatolites: «If however the conditions change, if for example the spring
rain floods the surface of increase covering it with mud, the cyanobacteria
react. The most important imperative for all living beings is to stay in life
and to succeed. The cyanobacteria need solar light. For this reason, if a layer
of mud blocks the solar rays, the filament types get rid of their revetment
mucilaginous and slide towards the upper part through the sediments to find
once again a surface exposed to the sun, which afterwards they rapidly
colonize.
 |
| it.wikipedia.org |
The photosynthetic bacteria of the
under felt which are also in need of solar light, follow the example freeing of
their turn a space, immediately occupied by the anaerobic which come up from below
to feed on whatever organic material is abandoned».
Hence, the imperative for all living
beings is to stay in life and to succeed in this they move between schemes: if…then.
To conclude the fossil documentation
gives us strong indications that for 3,5 milliards of years the life of the
bacteria remained almost unchanged. Already at the dawn of life, these,
according to the ambiental conditions, lived either in the planktonic state or
in the sessile state, The mucilage
today called Biofilm, was already present 3,5 milliards of years ago. And if
the Biofilm was already present in such organisms, then was already active the
“Quorum Sensing”.
One can hence presume that the
prokaryotes were, already at their origin, in possession of: reasoning,
communication, languages, social behaviour, intelligence, information,
altruism, that is to be clear of a mind.
As we have shown in the precedent
article, it is to be held that the organic mass of bacteria and cyanobacteria
is, today, double the mass of all the other living organisms in our planet.
And it is hence to presume that only
the possession of the characteristics mentioned above, only the possession of a
mind, has enabled the primitive cells, which appeared 3,5 milliards of years
ago, to dominate the world for the first 2 milliards of years and to be still
today protagonists of life in our planet.
And if life, as we believe, had its
beginning with the prokaryotes, then: when the life appeared so did the mind.
The Mind appears before the
appearance of the brain.
The mind must have been an emerging
property in the sense given to emergence by Ernst Mayr In “L’unicità della
biologia” 2005: «The appearance of unpredicted characteristics in complex
systems». «The emergence does not imply any idea of a metaphysical sort».
«Often in complex organisms properties appear which are not evident (and they
cannot be predicted) not even if we know the single components of these systems».
But what are these “other means”
which give origin to the mind, and why did the mind appear?
Giovanni
Occhipinti
Translated
by Silvia Occhipinti
LIVING ORGANISMS, BACTERIA: Body, Brain, Mind
(Part four)
The problem mind-body, which began
with Descartes, manifests now for centuries and has animated many numbers of
debates. In the first article of this series we have shown how the argument has
been taken up again also by Christian de Duve in “Polvere vitale”, 1995. De
Duve, after having quoted some scientists and philosophers who are occupied
with the problem of the mind, affirms: «These few quotations should make it
clear that research on the mind are still in an embryonal state. This situation
does not depend on the lack of study. In recent years, tens of books have
appeared treating the argument, writings of neuro-scientists, linguists,
computer specialists and philosophers, without counting theologists.
Unfortunately the thesis sustained are almost as numerous as the authors, also
because ideology has a more important role in human psychology than in other
scientific fields».
In the ´70s, as affirmed by the
psychologist Richard Gregory “La mente nella scienza” 1985. R. Mark proposed a
chemical theory that made the hypothesis of the existence of “molecules of
memory”. But as writes Nicolas Humphrey, a scientific psychologist, as he
himself defines, in “Polvere d’anima” 2013: «The psychologist Walter Mischel
has ironically observed: “Psychologists treat other people`s theories as tooth
brushes. No-one with a minimum of dignity would use that of another”. And the
philosophers tend to be even more parsimonious».
In the article “Living Organisms:
body, brain, mind”, we started off with the definition of what one intends by
Mind, that is: memory, direction of intellectual and practical ones,
conscience. These concepts, which define Mind, we have seen them, certainly in
a simple way, not only in the pluricellular organisms but also in unicellular
organisms. The examples, which have been reported, are only some of the
hundreds of publications, which show how typical concepts of our mind are in
possession of all living organisms.
But in the unicellular organisms,
from where does the mind emerge and when, that is, in what circumstances?
All composed substances can be
divided in organic and inorganic compounds. The organic compounds are about 1,5
Million; they all contain at least one atom of carbon and are derived from
living organisms or from artificial synthesis.
The inorganic compounds are about
150000. Even if they include the carbonate rocks, these compounds are
constituted essentially of all the other natural elements, with the exclusion
of carbon. Of all the inorganic compounds known, only about thousand, the minerals
can be found in nature as constituents of the Earth’s surface. The minerals are to be found essentially in
the crystalline state, where the particles (atoms, molecules or atomic groups)
have a spatial disposition perfectly regular and rigorously geometrical. The
crystals can give origin to splendid and complex geometric structures or
aggregates where the most various colours shine.
 |
| www.erboristeriarcobaleno.com |
Various popular beliefs have attributed magic virtues to crystals and some scholars have attributed even souls to stones. But until the times of Stenone around about 1650 and afterwards by Renato Haüy, scientists who began the study of crystals, no researcher of crystallography, mineralogy and geology, has ever discovered in crystals magic virtues, souls or concepts typical of our mind.
Inorganic matter is inanimate.
As living organisms are made up
essentially of organic substances, life and mind are properties, which emerge
only from organic matter.
As living organisms are made up
essentially of organic substances, life and mind are properties, which emerge
only from organic matter.
In the preceding article we have
seen how an equipment of basic knowledge, that is mind, is in possession of all
living organisms, included the bacteria, which are the smallest living
organisms. However, there exist organisms smaller than bacteria: virus.
The virus are made up of a proteic
involucre called capsid. Inside this
involucre is contained a molecule of nucleic acid, their genetic patrimony. As
they do not have a cellular apparatus, they cannot reproduce and hence they are
not considered living organisms. But do virus present concepts typical of mind?
Can we affirm that virus present a basic knowledge equipment?
Dorothy Crawford microbiologist, one
of the most important experts of virus, in an essay, “Il nemico invisibile,
storia naturale dei virus”, 2002, writes: «Intelligent, clever, ingenious;
these are only a few of the adjectives usually used for virus, and apparently
they describe them well. […] Moreover, they seem capable of planning a strategy
of attack and survival, but this would mean giving for certain that they are
able to think. And yet virus are without a brain, and so they are unable to
control their destiny. How can an organism so small and simple be so
“intelligent”? » But Dorothy Crawford, after having briefly examined the
bacteria, further on adds: «Contrary to bacteria the virus can do nothing by
themselves. They are not cell but particles, and they do not have a source of
energy nor any of the cellular apparatus necessary to produce proteins. Each of
them is made up simply of genetic material surrounded by a protective proteic
shell, called capsid. […] But to
succeed in using it, they must penetrate in a living cell and assume its
control». […] In this way the virus invade living beings, they take possession
of cells, and transform them in fabrics for the production of virus». Moreover,
as Crawford inform us again, outside the host cell, the virus cannot survive
long because they not dispose of the metabolic processes of cell.
Hence, it is not enough for virus to
be in possession of nucleic acid. These present concepts typical of our mind
only when they take possession of a cell. This means that the basic knowledge
equipment has its seat in the cell. However, it also means that the mind does
not emerge directly from the genetic patrimony.
But then, in the cell, from where
does the mind emerge?
Before giving an answer to this
question, we must clear up another question. The mind in our species emerges
from the brain, which is made up of nervous cells or neurons. But concepts
typical of our mind we have found them also in bacteria.
And then, how different are the
neurons from the other cells and in particular from the unicellular?
The neurons are made up of a
cellular body from which goes out a prolongation called axon, through which
they transmit signals to the other cells. From the cellular body take leave
also the prolongation called dendrites, through which the neurons receive
signals from the other nervous cells. The brain of monkeys, of hens, is also
made up of neurons and neurons can be found in worms.
Neurons seem, at first sight
different from all the other cells. But how much different?
With reference to the data of
comparative anatomy, Aurelio Bairati, in “Compendio di anatomia umana”, 1975,
faces the problem of the delimitation and recognition of the most simple
nervous
elements in the lowest phyla. In particular, he asks himself if one should consider as nervous elements the cells muscle epithelium of the low metazoan capable of gathering stimuli at the body’s surface and manifesting phenomena of contraction; or else consider as more primitive nervous the elements epithelial modified, of revetment, capable of gathering ambiental variations linked with contractile elements, that is the cells receptive peripheral. And he adds: «Unfortunately studies at this level are spoiled by the fact of often not wanting to take account that all the cellular elements, even on a small base, are capable of manifesting phenomenon classifiable as nervous: we must in fact remember that one of the properties of living matter and of the cellular state is irritability, that is the capacity to respond immediately to stimuli, […] ».
 |
| omodeo.anisn.it |
elements in the lowest phyla. In particular, he asks himself if one should consider as nervous elements the cells muscle epithelium of the low metazoan capable of gathering stimuli at the body’s surface and manifesting phenomena of contraction; or else consider as more primitive nervous the elements epithelial modified, of revetment, capable of gathering ambiental variations linked with contractile elements, that is the cells receptive peripheral. And he adds: «Unfortunately studies at this level are spoiled by the fact of often not wanting to take account that all the cellular elements, even on a small base, are capable of manifesting phenomenon classifiable as nervous: we must in fact remember that one of the properties of living matter and of the cellular state is irritability, that is the capacity to respond immediately to stimuli, […] ».
Alessandro
Minelli in “Forme del divenire. Evo
Devo: la biologia evoluzionistica dello sviluppo”, 2007, writes: «The cases in
which our classifications go in crisis are not rare, and to come out without
being too subtle we content ourselves with creating new hybrid classes, as in
the case of the mioepithelial cells (a
bit muscular fibres, a bit revetment cells) or of those neuro epithelial (a bit
revetment cell. A bit neuron) which we find in the body of the hydra and the
other cnidarians». And after having made it clear that evolution does not imply
only the organs apparats, he adds: «Moreover many significant turns in the
story of evolution really depended on changes in the properties and in the
functions of the single cell: for example in their capacity of remaining
sticking the ones against the others – a fundamental property in passing from
the condition unicellular to the pluricellular – or its getting longer in
answer to definite stimuli, as can be observed both in the hyphae of mushrooms
as in neurons of animals and in the vegetative tops of green plants». Christian
de Duve in “Polvere vitale, 1998 in the chapter dedicated to the brain with
reference to the neurons writes: «Subtle extroflessions with filaments form the
parts receiving and transmitting […] The neurite or axon […] and the dendrites […] The emission of
extroflessions is a general property of the eukaryote cell. Such processes, or
pseudopods (in Greek), which carry out functions in the perception, in the
capture of nourishment or in the locomotion, usually have an ephemeral
existence and are retired immediately after having been emitted. In these
reversible phenomena, they play an important role mounting and dismounting of microtubules.
We can affirm that a neuron had its origin for the first time when such
extroflessions became stable – when the evanescent micro tubules transformed
themselves in micro tubules stable – and they polarized themselves in
receptionist and transmitters unidirectional».
Also Gary Marcus is concerned on the
difference between normal cells and neurons. In “La nascita della mente”, 2008
he writes: «Even if the external aspect and its special aptitude in calculation
and in communication at a long distance make them seem different from the
greater part of the other cells, underneath it all what they do is the same as
what the other cells do. Their cellular body (called soma) contains the variety
of particles (called organelles) as a cell of the skin or the liver:
mitochondria to produce energy, establishments for the synthesis of proteins
called “endoplasmic reticulum”, membranes to keep invaders out and nuclei to
contain the DNA. A neuron whatever, in fact, begins its life as an epithelial
cell and, if it were not for a few chemical indications, could just as well
finish on the outside just like a cell of the skin. Many of the most
spectacular specializations of the neuron are only variations on normal
cellular themes. For example, the neuron has more mitochondria than usual in
such a way as to satisfy the high request of energy. Also the long subtle axons
are not something completely new: the proteins of the cytoskeleton fibrous on
which the structure of the axons and the microtubules bases itself, like
conducts which they use to transport material, they can both be found
practically in every cell. The neurons, cells characteristic of the brain, are
special, but not more so than the other almost 210 types of cell of the human
body». Marcus, after having made it clear that in the animal world the genes
over and above the development of the brain influence the development of the
mind, he writes. «Many genes and proteins which take part in the construction
of the brain have stories which go back to a time very much before that in
which the branch of the primates bifurcated from that of the other mammals; of
some of them one can even follow the traces backwards to the bacteria».
Definitely, from the point of view
biochemical and physiological, all the cells, including the unicellular,
manifest nervous phenomena and the capacity of communicating and elaborating
information. About 600 millions of years ago, during the cellular division, we
do not know why, the cells, instead of separating, stayed together giving
origin to the pluricellular organisms. At this point, it was necessary to
coordinate the nervous manifestations, those of communication and elaboration
of the information of the single cell. At the beginning cells had origin, as
can be observed also today in the lowest phyla, where the neuron function was
superposed, in the same cell, on other functions, like covering. During the
evolution process of the pluricellular organisms, some cells, the neurons,
evolved growing and coordinating the nervous functions, and liberating at the
same time all the other cells of this task. Hence, the basic elements which
characterize the neurons are, at an elementary level, already present in all
the cellular elements. Then the mind, which characterizes the neurons and our
brain, comes in reality from a long evolution process of a bases cognitive
equipment already in the possession of all living organisms.
The question remains: in the cell
from microorganisms, from where does the mind emerge?
Homeostasis or regularizing circuit
Konrad Lorenz in “Etologia” 1980,
first of all makes a distinction between disquisition of information of the
genome and learning. He dwells on a third category of processes which serve to
acquire information but do not absorb it: «The simplest form of acquiring
information momentarily is the regularizing circuit or homeostasis. Such a
mechanism permits for the living beings to find once more and to maintain their
equilibrium after a disturbance. If an animal who lacks oxygen breaths more
rapidly or in the presence of excessive food, stops eating for the while, this
means, not only that the organism is informed on its need of certain
substances, but also on the “situation of the market” which exists in its
environment with reference to this substance. The structure of the regularizing
circuit in the genome renders it possible to maintain in the organism a
determined “normal value”. The regularizing circuit or homeostasis in the field
of the living is practically omnipresent and it is unimaginable a life without
this function. One could think that it appeared at the same time as life,
unless the first vital processes did not appear in an ambiance of a such highly
elevated constant (not imaginable) rendering superfluous to keep count the
momentary information». But the ambiance as it is described by Shopf in “La
culla della vita”2003, 3, 5 milliard of years ago, when life had its origin,
was not all constant, it was an infernal ambience. Hence, the homeostasis
appeared at the same time as life.
On homeostasis works also Freeman J.
Dyson in “Origini della vita” 2002,where he writes: «The essential
characteristic of living beings is homeostasis, that is the capacity of
maintaining a uniform chemical equilibrium and more or less constant in a
changing ambiance. The homeostasis is this complex of chemical controls and of
cycles of retroaction which enables every molecular species, inside the cell,
to be produced in the right proportion: not too much and not too little.
Without homeostasis there could not be neither an ordered metabolism nor an
equilibrium almost stationary, nothing which could deserve the name of life».
The neuro scientist Antonio Damasio
in “Il sè viene alla mente” 2012, defines the homeostasis, present in all living
organisms, like all the operations of management to procure the sources of
energy, incorporate them, transform them and eliminate the residues: «It aims
at maintaining the chemical parameters of the organism (the internal milieu)
between that magic interval compatible with the life of cell itself».
And Christian de Duve, with
reference to the cellular body of the neuron (essay quoted), writes: «The body
of the cell occupies itself with all the functions necessary to the life of the
cell itself: it is the unity chosen at the same time to furnish energy and to
occupy itself of the maintenance and of the reparations».
The brain, seat of the mind, is an
interface where is elaborated information which comes from the inside of the body
and from the external environment.
As exposed above, the homeostasis
remain on the other hand a question internal to the cell, in the sense that the
metabolism controls and maintains the right parameters, and the genome repairs
the damage of the metabolism. It does not have any direct interaction with the
external ambiance, it does not elaborate information.
The homeostasis or regularizing
circuit cannot be the place where the mind emerges.
Hence the mind, as we have seen
analysing the behaviour of the virus, does not emerge from nucleic acid, that
is from genetic patrimony, but neither from the homeostasis.
But what structure in the cell is,
like the brain, the interface between the interior and the external ambiance?
The cellular membrane.
The cellular membrane or plasmatic
membrane is made up of a skeleton of phospholipid. It draws the limit which
confines the cell and separates the inside of the cell, the cytoplasm, from the
external environment. Anchored to the cellular membrane, one finds enzymatic
protein and hence it also carries out a catalytic function. Moreover, engrained
in the membrane one can find proteinic biosensor and proteinic ducts through
which the cell controls that which must enter and that which must go out.
Proteins constitute 50-75% of the substances present in the membrane. As
exposed by Romano Viviani in “Elementi di biochimica” 1984, (Significato
biochimico dei fosfolipidi, pag. 239); the phospholipid accomplish important
functions which concern the activity of the enzymatic proteins and of transport
present in the membranes. In particular: «[…]it has been demonstrated a
specific role of the phospholipid with allosteric effects, transporters of
reagent and activators of the substrata».
So, all the components of the
cellular membrane are in continuous and active cooperation and coordinate their
activities.
Moreover, as Pietro Amodeo informs
us in “Anatomia comparata ed evoluzione della cellula” Le Scienze Quaderni n.7,
1983 with reference to the bacteria cell:
 |
| scienceforlife.altervista.org |
«The plasmatic membrane carries out
different and essential functions: it regulates the flux of nutrition and hence
the growth and cellular reproduction; it regulates the flux of ions and hence
the excitability; it supports many enzymes and enzymatic apparatus and it is
hence the principal seat of metabolism; it is the seat of flux of protons for
the refurnishing of the energy, and in the end it furnishes the places of
anchorage for the chromosome, for a part of ribosomes and for the flagella, if
these little organelles are present. This list is enough to convince that the
plasmatic membrane is the dynamic centre of the cellular life»
Even if in the unicellular
eukaryotes (cells that have a nucleus) some of these functions are transferred
in the interior of the cell, the plasmatic membrane remains however, the
dynamic centre of the cellular life, where the proteins have a determinate
role.
The study of the functioning of the proteins
begins with the theory of the key and lock elaborated by Emil Fisher for
enzymes. At that time, it was thought that the enzymes had a rigid structure.
Later studies have made it evident that enzymes present a certain modulation,
they are flexible in the sense that their structure remodulates adapting to the
substratum to be catalysed. Moreover, allosteric molecules can modify the
structure of the enzyme, that is molecules which tie to specific sites of the
enzyme which assumes a new conformation.
The modulation is not a characteristic
only of enzymatic protein but it concerns all the globular proteins and hence
also the proteic biosensors and proteic ducts contained in the cellular membrane.
Russell F. Doolittle in “Le proteine”
Le Scienze 1985, informs us: «A typical globular protein contains about 350
amino acids which could fold in innumerable ways, […] In a certain sense it is
extraordinary that a random protein constantly assumes a single conformation
well defined; the folded condition has in fact a free energy inferior to whatever alternative
configuration, but the difference is small».
But how many are these conformations
innumerable?
Rupert Sheldrake in “Le illusioni
della scienza” 2013, quotes Christian Anfinsen, Nobel Prize for the refolding
of the proteins: « […] if the single residues of a polypeptidic chain could
have only two states, an estimation roughly by defect, conformations generated
in a casual way would be 1045 for a chain of 150 residue amino acids
(even if, obviously, the greater part would be impossible from a steric point
of view) ».
Even if the greater part of the
conformations are impossible, in a single protein, however an enormous number
of conformations at low energy would remain, perhaps milliards, where the
difference of energy, between the various conformations, is small. A slight
change in the surrounding ambience is enough to make a protein pass from one
conformation to another.
Around the ´80s, it was made clear
how some enzymes are, in reality, a grouping of several enzymes. A modification
induced in the structure of one of the enzymes leads to changes also in the
enzymes associated in a sort of enzymatic “cooperation”.
Nigel Unwin and Richard Henderson in
“La struttura delle proteine delle membrane biologiche” Le Scienze 1984, after
having made it clear that the biological membrane are not simple container, but
they behave as mediators highly specific between the cell and the surrounding
ambience, they write: «Groups of helical and pleated sheet structures probably fuse in compact globular molecules, which
vary as dimensions form and number of polypeptidic chain. Many of these
molecules can associate on the level of the membrane, creating composite
structures. Such a composite structures could be compared to certain hydro
soluble enzymes, which consist in many sub unities, these last go through small
restructuration “cooperative” in answer to stimuli of a specific nature».
Hence, the memory of specific
stimuli is conserved in the conformation of the protein of membrane.
Daniel E. Koshland Jr, in
“Conformazione delle proteine e controllo biologico” Le Scienze Quaderni n.44,
1988, with reference to the flexibility of proteins, writes: «The sensorial
receptors which make us able to see, to hear, to taste, to smell, are proteins.
The antibodies, which immunize us, are proteins. Recent experiments have
demonstrated that it is the capacity of these proteins of changing form by the
effect of external influence to furnish the mechanism of control so essential
for the living systems». That is an odour changes the conformation of a
protein, when the same odour presents itself the protein recognizes it again.
But then the proteins conserved in
their conformations, the memory of the sensorial stimuli.
And Koshland with reference to the
entity of the modifications of conformation and of the propagation, writes: «It
hence seems that the modification of the conformations induced in the proteins
are not propagated like concentric rings provoked by the fall of a stone in a
pool. It is more like something similar to a cobweb whose threads are
predisposed in such a way as to transmit a shirt precisely from one extremity
to the opposite extremity of the web. The hit can be transmitted at a great
distance and can change the position of many threads, but an accurate design
can guarantee that some webs remain unmoved, whereas others move in an
appreciable measure. The protein like the spider web is predisposed to transmit
information in a selective way to some regions while leaving others unchanged».
And again: «These modifications of form […] are rather like the delicate
reactions of a cobweb fabricated with an equilibrium exquisite. The subtle web,
which we call protein, can be changed in its form by minute hits, and it is through
the repercussions of these blows that the functions can be put into motion or
blocked».
Essentially, the information is
transmitted in a selective way and are conserved by changing only some regions.
The difference of energy between the new conformation and the preceding one is
little. But how we have seen before, the number of conformations at low energy
is enormous. This means that the proteins can archive, in their conformations,
a great number of information.
And Koshland continues: «Moreover,
it has been suggested recently that a slow change of conformations is at the
basis of a certain sort of memory typical of bacterial chemotaxis, that is that
phenomenon for which a bacteria, put into a solution of certain chemical substances,
moves in answer to a grade of concentration. A change of this type can have at
its counterpart in the nervous system of animals».
Hence, already in 1988 Koshland
suggested that memory of bacteria can be contained in the conformation of
proteins.
The proteins, in unicellular
organisms, could be the “molecules of memory” hypothesized by R. Mark.
Because these proteins are
disseminated in the cellular membrane, it is hence possible that one of the
properties fundamental in mind has a seat in the cellular membrane.
Let us sum the above exposed facts.
All the components of the cellular membrane are in continuous and active
cooperation and coordinate their activities. The cellular membrane receives
information from the inside of the cell and, through biosensors receives
information from the external world; it is hence a means of communication and
elaboration of data. The proteins disseminated in the plasmatic membrane can
assume numerous conformations at a low energy with small difference of energy.
A stimulus or a change of ambiance can modify the conformation of a protein and
conserve its memory. The information are
emagazined in a protein under the form of different conformation, it can hence
conserve an enormous quantity of information.
We could compare the final structure
of a protein to the water, which goes down a mountain and fixes itself in a
hydric basin at the end of the valley after having lost all its potential
energy.
So let us imagine that from the
mountain a stone rotates down and falls in the basin, splashing water on the
surface of the basin. Slowly that water, energetically instable, goes back to
the original basin cancelling every memory of event. But, if the water that
splashes is abundant and gives origin to a small puddle, it does not come back.
In the new basin, the water has a little energy more but it is energetically
stable because it cannot come out of the puddle. It remains there to conserve
the memory of event.
Now, let us imagine a protein of
membrane which receives a stimulus and changes its structure. The protein
presents, in the new structure, the memory of event. If the new structure is
energetically unstable slowly, it returns to its original structure, losing the
memory of the stimulus. If however the new structure, which the protein assumes
as an effect of the stimulus, is one of the structures stable energetically, it
will maintain the new structure and will conserve the memory of the event.
The plasmatic membrane is really the
dynamic centre of the cell and following the suggestion of Kosland, one can
advance the hypothesis that it is the seat of the memory. The memory is one of
the properties of the mind, but is memory already mind?
It would be like saying that the puddle of
water, generated by the stone which falls into the basin and which conservers
the memory of the event, has a mind.
The memory, as we have described it,
can re-enter in a mechanical process that is in a complex of chemical
interactions and cycles of retroaction.
In the unicellular organisms the
memory, which we associate with the definition of mind, can exist also without
the presence of mind and can act in an autonomous way.
But in the end the mind, when does
it emerge and from where?
As we have shown in “I batteri.
Organismi viventi: corpo, cervello, mente (parte seconda), Adler has put in the
presence of bacteria a capillary tube containing not only a substance which
attracts, but also a substance which repels and he writes: «So the bacteria had
the choice if to go in or not to go in the capillary. Their “decision” is
dependant on the concentration relative to the substance which attracts and
that which repels. The mechanisms which permit to “take a decision” in a
situation of “conflict” like this is still unknown, but we can say that the bacteria
are capable, in a certain way, of integrating multiple sensorial stimuli». And
he continues: « […] bacteria, usually flee from cold, but this does not happen if
the cold solution contains an attracting substance fairly strong. In the same
way, bacteria are attracted by heat, but not if the hot solution contains a
repellent fairly strong. In these cases, the bacteria must integrate, or
elaborate two sensorial informations: the temperature and the chemical
substances».
If bacteria receives at the same
time, a stimulus which communicates to it the presence of a repellent and a
stimulus which communicates the presence of a nutrition, how can it choose?
Because, as Adler writes, the “decision” depends on the concentrations, we
indicate with N the nutrient, that is the substance of attraction and with R
the repellent. The bacteria seems to act in this way: If the concentration of the nutrient is higher than the repellent then go towards the nutrient, that is: if N >R then … . The bacteria resolves a situation of conflict through a
logical scheme. If the situation of conflict contains two sensorial
information, as a cold solution and an attractive substance, the bacteria must
integrate correlated logical schemes. In fact the bacteria must above all evaluate
how cold is the solution, it must afterwards evaluate how it is concentrated,
it must integrate the results and take a “decision”. But these are logical
scheme typical of our mind and they emerge when the bacteria finds itself in a
situation of conflict.
Hence, in unicellular organisms the
mind is an emergence in the presence of a situation of conflict.
But the logical choices are not
always the right ones and then, if the choice is the right one it saves the
life of the organisms; if the choice is wrong, the organism loses its life but
saves the life from extinction.
It is known that the proteins in the
cell, above executing their function, interact also between themselves. As
Carol Ezzel informs as in “Adesso comandano le proteine” Le Scienze 2002, one
of the aims of proteinomic is that of defining how the proteins organize
themselves in webs, like electric circuits. It would hence make the hypothesis
that all the proteins of the plasmatic membrane organize themselves in specific
webs that interact between themselves and with all the components of the
cellular membrane.
We have made the hypothesis that the
sensorial proteins contain the memory of the event. It seems that when the web
of sensorial proteins receives stimuli in contrast, the mind emerges which
recuperates the information contained in the memory and it chooses according to
schemes if…then. The choice creates a
counter reaction to the complex of the protein webs of the membrane and of the
final reaction of the organism.
As these proteic webs are to be
found in the cellular membrane, which is the dynamic centre of the cell, in the
unicellular organisms the mind emerges from the cellular membrane when
situations of conflict present themselves and take the decisions, using the
data contained in the memory.
In conclusion, in the unicellular organisms,
the plasmatic membrane is an interface between the inside and the outside of
the cell and it carries out at a very elementary level, the same function, as does
the brain in the pluricellular complex organisms. It is probable, hence, that
the mind, which we have found also in the unicellular organisms, has its origin
in the plasmatic membrane when the organism finds itself in conflictual
situations. If there is no conflict the mind does not emerge, but the memory is
always present and this is enough for the survival of the organisms.
Before entering into the merits it is perhaps useful to recall that in posts n. 14 and 15 we had come to the conclusion that also micro-organisms, in addition to multicellular organisms, have: memory, direct and solve practical problems, they know how to orient themselves in space and have "apparently" intelligent behaviors.
Ultimately, all living organisms, even if they do not have a brain, possess a basic cognitive equipment for survival, that is, they possess a mind that emerges in situations of conflict.
This idea begins to make its way also among the neuro-scientists. Antonio Damasio in "Il sè viene alla mente" 2012 attributes to the single cell concepts of desires, wills, intentions and purposes that we associate with the human mind. Shimon Edelman in "La felicità della ricerca" 2013 goes further by saying that yeast cells for procreation, to identify the partner, develop a projection and are driven by a simple mind.
Now, if all living organisms are in possession of a mind, and all living organisms are descended from primordial cells, then the mind must have appeared from the origins of life, that is, from the very first cells.
Then, let's imagine two proto-cells just emerging from their respective cavities with their membrane containing a rudimentary surface protein network. The latter collect the data of the terrible conditions of the primordial earth where chaos was the absolute master of the environment. Moreover, in a chaotic environment salinity, pH, temperature, the presence of harmful substances and other parameters change continuously and homeostasis receives contradictory information.
In these chaotic conditions, the two proto-cells find themselves in a situation of conflict: change or resist chaos. For the survival of the proto-cell, this conflict can be solved with logical schemes, that is, with the emergence of the mind. The first proto-cell decides to resist chaos, but no trace remains of it. The second proto-cell decides to change, even without knowing the final outcome, and the proto-cell begins the cell division. So the mind appears with the first cells and is responsible for cell division.
Where does the mind emerge from?
In post n. 17 we have seen that if a bacterium receives, at the same time, a stimulus that communicates the presence of a repellent and a stimulus that communicates the presence of a nutrient, the "decision" as Adler writes depends on the concentrations. Then we indicate with N the nutrient for example the nutrient substance and with R the repellant. The bacterium seems to act in this way: it collects the data from the surrounding environment and, if the concentration of the nutrient is greater than the repellent, then go towards the nutrient, that is: if N> R then.... The bacterium resolves a conflict situation by means of a logical scheme. If the conflict situation contains two sensory information, as a cold solution and a nutrient substance, the bacterium must integrate related logical patterns. In fact, the bacterium must first evaluate how cold the solution is, must then evaluate how much it is concentrated, it must integrate the data and take a "decision". Since these data, at any moment, are collected and integrated by the membrane proteins network and these proteins must make a "decision".
As Maurine E. Linder and Alfred G. Gilman in "The Science" September 1992, write these protein networks are found in the cell membrane of all living organisms and play a key role in muscle contraction and cognitive processes of human beings. And so, since all living organisms derive from primordial cells, the mind emerges, today as then, from the membrane proteins network when the organism faces a problem.
What is the mind really?
A naive hypothesis.
We have written above that it was the membrane proteins, even if rudimentary, that inform homeostasis of the chaotic and lethal conditions of the external environment and push for change. The proto-cell through homeostasis increases its mass, and does so in the only way it knows how to: to build structures and produce entropy.
What should we intend by the term informing homeostasis and "pushing for change" that has resulted in cellular duplication?
Let's start from the definition of homeostasis. Homeostasis is a chemical-physical process of self-regulation, defined as the response of the internal electromagnetic field and around the entity with respect to changes in the external environment and the internal medium. Homeostasis, through chemical reactions and feedback cycles, tends to preserve the balance of the proto-organism.
In the first part of the article, we have assumed that within the proto-organism, which has become the proto-cell membrane, sub-sets operate, each with its own electromagnetic field and a sub-homeostasis.
So, let us imagine that within a sub-set a protein decomposes. As a consequence of this decomposition, the sub-assembly is no longer in equilibrium and has a different electromagnetic field. The latter pushes the electromagnetic field of the DNA-protein sub-assembly to express the specific gene, i.e. the RNA for the decomposed protein. The electromagnetic field of the synthesized RNA drives the electromagnetic field of the sub-set tRNA-Ribosome that synthesizes the protein. The synthesized protein falls into the previous state and its electromagnetic field returns it to equilibrium. We are in the presence, therefore, of a domino effect, of a network of interdependent sub-assemblies whose electromagnetic fields self-regulate, necessarily in synergistic coordination with the electromagnetic field of the proto-cell that regulates the balance of the whole.
Thus, chemical reactions and feedback cycles, therefore homeostasis, are variations in electromagnetic fields. Then, if at a certain moment the homeostasis activates a specific gene for the synthesis of proteins for cell division, it means that it has received an electromagnetic signal. If we said that it was the emergence of the mind that gave rise to cell division, then the mind is an electromagnetic field.
How does this electromagnetic field originate?
As we saw in the previous article, all the components of the proto-cell were kept inside a membrane linked to the electromagnetic field around the proto-organism (in red in the image). This field, even though it is now inside the proto-cell, we will continue to call it an electromagnetic field around the proto-organism so as not to confuse it with other fields.
If we imagine that the system is in equilibrium, the field around the proto-organism must, logically, present its homogeneity.
Membrane proteins are embedded in the membrane. Each of these proteins, as a consequence of the bonds of its atoms, has its own electromagnetic field specific to its conformation. The part of the membrane protein immersed in the external environment, which are the heads of proteins, collect data on environmental conditions. Due to the fact the environmental conditions were chaotic, the data collected by a single protein were certainly different and conflicting from those collected from other proteins. Transferring the data of each individual protein directly to homeostasis would have had no influence because it cannot react to contradictory data. Thus, the data collected by a single protein, before being transmitted inside the cell, to homeostasis, must be integrated with the data collected by all the numerous membrane proteins and processed. This leads to the conclusion that membrane proteins must necessarily be contained in a protein network. Since each protein has its own electromagnetic field, the proteins' heads and tails of the whole protein network probably give rise to an external and an internal electromagnetic fields, located at a molecular distance from the membrane. These fields are initially uneven. The external electromagnetic field (from blue to violet) integrates and processes the environmental data collected by the membrane protein network, assumes its homogeneity and through the body of proteins immersed in the membrane it synchronizes the protein tails. As the protein tails are synchronized, the internal electromagnetic field also becomes homogeneous. Only two possibilities are opened here: the internal homogeneous electromagnetic field (in violet) is congruent with the electromagnetic field around the proto-organism (always in red);
the internal homogeneous electromagnetic field is incongruent with the electromagnetic field around the proto-organism (the red arrows represent, in the two images, the field lines).
Then we return to the two proto-cells. In the first proto-cell, more than half of the data collected brings the external electromagnetic field and the internal field to be congruent with the field around the proto-organism, no change takes place and no trace is left of it. In the second proto-cell, more than half of the data collected brings the external electromagnetic field and the internal field to be incongruent with the field around the proto-organism. This is the electromagnetic field that brings homeostasis into action. This is the electromagnetic signal that pushes the proto-cell to change, to begin the cell division. Therefore, here is the the mind resides. What if data processing takes more or less halfway, how does the mind choose? The decision will be left to chance or, because we are within the mind, if you want, to free will.
On the other hand, what does it mean to integrate and process data?
It means to count (in the sense that each collision changes the conformation of a protein and then adds something to the existing electromagnetic field), evaluate the relative intensities of the parameters (temperature, pH, etc.), evaluate how much a substance can be useful or harmful and finally add them to give an answer; that is, processing quantity and quality, this is the scheme.
So, let's go back to our bacterium that receives two sensory information as a substance of strong attraction (quantity) in a very cold solution (quality). If quantitative information is much higher than qualitative information, the bacterium is directed towards the nutrient substance, and we will probably find it dead.
Who processes this data in humans? The mind
Then, the external electromagnetic field, generated by the membrane protein network and located at a molecular distance from the membrane, is probably where the mind resides in the cells. It emerges from the body and acts on the body. Now, if all living organisms are in possession of a mind, and all living organisms descend from primordial cells, then the mind must have appeared from the beginning of life. So the mind appears with the first cells and affects reproduction for the survival of the organism in a world dominated by chaos.
Yeah, a naive hypothesis, but how much is it naive?
How does an idea move the matter?
What exactly is awareness and how does it interact with the matter of the brain to make our legs arms or tongue move?
These are the questions that have been asked by Jim Al-Khalili and Johnjoe McFadden in "La fisica della vita" 2015 in the chapter: The mind. They analyzed the mechanics of thinking, from sensory stimuli to nerves to muscles, and pointed out how the logical gates of a computer are quite similar to neurons. So they wondered why computers on complex networks, such as the web, do not give signs of awareness. Perhaps the web has not reached the complexity of the "interconnections" of the brain cells, or is consciousness based on a different type of computer science?
In 1989, the mathematician Roger Penrose proposed the idea that consciousness was a phenomenon of quantum correlation. The authors, after pointing out that this idea is not sustainable, in reference to the ionic channels of the neurons write: «So, if there can not be a correlation to link the information at the quantum level in the ionic channels, is there maybe something else that could do it? Maybe yes. The ion channels regulated by the voltage are sensitive (obviously) to the voltage: it is the one that opens and closes the channels. Voltage is only a measurement of the gradient of an electric field, but the entire volume of the brain is immersed in its electromagnetic field, generated by the electrical activity of all its nerves. This is the field that is detected in every electroencephalogram and a glance at the graphs resulting from these exams will give you an idea of how complex and information-rich it is. Most neuroscientists have ignored the role that the electromagnetic field could have in brain calculations, because it has always been postulated that it is a bit like the whistle of a train: a product of brain activity, but of no impact on its activity. However, several scientists, including Johnioe, have recently begun to consider the idea that shifting consciousness from discrete particles of matter to the electromagnetic field can solve the problem of connection, and reveal the location of consciousness. [...] In the nineteenth century James Clark Maxwell discovered that electricity and magnetism are two aspects of the same phenomenon, electromagnetism, so we refer to both as "electromagnetic field".
Einstein’s equation E = mc2 with energy at the first member and mass at the second shows, as is well known, that energy and matter are interchangeable. Thus, the electromagnetic field of the brain (the first member of Einstein's equation) is as real as the matter of its neurons; and as it is generated by the activation of neurons, it encodes exactly the same information as the patterns of neuronal activation in the brain. However, while the neuronal information remains trapped in the neurons, the electrical activity generated by their activation encodes all the information in the electromagnetic field of the brain. And this could solve the connection problem. [...]. When theories of consciousness based on the electromagnetic field were first presented at the beginning of this century, there was no direct evidence that the field generated by the brain could influence the patterns of nerve activation to give rise to our thoughts and our actions. However, experiments carried out in different laboratories have recently shown that an external electromagnetic field, of structure and intensity similar to that of the brain, actually manages to influence the activation of the nerves. The field seems to be able to coordinate the activity of the nerves: it synchronizes different neurons, which then activate together. The results of the experiments suggest that the electromagnetic field of the brain, generated by activation of the nerves, influences the activation itself, generating a sort of self-referential circle that many theoreticians consider an essential component of consciousness. The synchronization of the activation of the nerves by the electromagnetic field is very significant, because it is one of the few characteristics of the nervous activity known to be in relation with the consciousness. We all looked for an object that was in plain sight, like our glasses, but then always find it in the midst of a confusion of other things. As we sought through that confusion, the visual information that encoded the object traveled to our brain, through our eyes, but somehow we did not see what we were looking for: we were not aware of it. Then, all of a sudden, we see it. What changes in the brain between the moment in which we are not yet aware of the object and the moment in which we are? Strangely, the neural activation itself does not seem different: the same neurons are activated in both cases. But when we do not see the glasses, the neurons are activated asynchronously, and when we become conscious they do it synchronously. The electromagnetic field, which concentrates all those ionic channels coherent in different parts of the brain to activate neurons in a synchronized way, could play a role in this transition between unconscious and conscious thought ».
Thus, in simple systems, the mind synchronizes proteins; in complex systems, the mind synchronizes neurons. If all living organisms are descended from the first cells, then the quantity-quality scheme has certainly evolved but it certainly has not changed.
Ultimately, within the cavity, well protected, a rudimentary homeostasis was sufficient for the organism. Unfortunately, all this was no longer sufficient when the proto-organism that became proto-cell was in the open field. In the chaos of the primordial earth, to solve survival problems and conflicts generated by chaos here and now, logical schemes were necessary, that is the appearance of a mind however simple. Cell and mind duplication are therefore interconnected and have emerged for the survival of organisms.
Life can begin and with it natural selection.
Giovanni
Occhipinti
Translated by Silvia Occhipinti
Interessantissimo. In particolare il nesso ere geologiche-processi evolutivi della vita microbiotica
RispondiElimina