Which
came first? Mr. Chicken or Ms. Egg?
Here's an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about consciousness and birds, as described in the book "Life on the Edge" by Johnjoe McFadden & Jim Al-Khalili.
In their remarkable book, “Life on the Edge,” Johnjoe McFadden, an expert in molecular genetics, and Jim Al-Khalili, a quantum physicist, join forces to explain many everyday aspects of life in terms of what is often referred to as quantum weirdness. After teasing the reader with an introduction presenting the puzzle of how birds can detect the Earth’s magnetic field and use it for navigation, the authors lead us gently by the hand through discussions of the nature of life itself, right down to the molecular level and the mysteries of quantum physics. This is material that has been covered in many books but nowhere more succinctly and clearly than here. The authors have an easily accessible style, free from jargon, that can make complex issues clear even to the non-scientist.
Crown, 353 pages, $28
Thus prepared, we are ready for an explanation of what they call
“the quantum robin”—the workings of the magnetic sense organ in birds
and other animals. It turns out that this ability is linked to the
phenomenon known as “entanglement”: Entanglement involves two or more
quantum entities, such as electrons, being in some sense in tune with
each other, so that when one of them is prodded the other one
twitches—even when they are separated by great distances. And in certain
circumstances, as Messrs. McFadden and Al-Khalili explain, this makes
molecules in the animal’s sense organ sensitive to the direction of a
magnetic field.
This is a profound realization, because entanglement is such a bizarre concept, that for decades even many physicists doubted that it could be real. Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.” The equations tell us that once two particles have interacted, then forever afterward, no matter how far apart they are, a measurement of one particle will instantaneously affect the properties of the other. As Einstein wrote to his friend Leon Rosenfeld: “Is it not paradoxical? How can the final state of the second particle be influenced by a measurement performed on the first, after all physical connection has ceased between them?” He believed that this paradox highlighted a flaw in quantum theory, and he went to his grave still looking for a better description of the universe. But he was wrong. In the 1980s (and repeatedly since), experiments involving photons, the particles of light, have proved that the spooky action at a distance is real.
In that case, it should be expected that natural processes make use of it. Why shouldn’t they? Life uses whatever is available, whether that thing is food, energy or quantumly entangled particles.
So
it should be no surprise when the authors explain that monarch
butterflies and fruit flies are among other species that make use of
quantum effects in navigation. Nor are quantum processes confined to the
animal world. Photosynthesis is the mechanism in plants that provides
the energy used to manufacture plant material, and ultimately the food
we eat, out of basic chemicals such as water and carbon dioxide. This,
too, depends on quantum processes that “push” the absorbed energy of
sunlight in the right direction.
“Pre-quantum” physics—the laws discovered by Isaac Newton—is often referred to as classical physics. “Most biologists,” the authors point out, “still believe that the classical laws are sufficient” to explain photosynthesis, “with light acting like some kind of golf club able to whack the oxygen golf ball out of the carbon dioxide molecule.” But, like Einstein contemplating spooky action at a distance, they are wrong. The key step in the process involves electrons “hopping” from one molecule to another. Some extraordinary experiments described in this book have revealed that this energy is flowing through the plant by, in effect, following several routes simultaneously, thanks to a phenomenon known as coherence. This is a purely quantum effect.
This discovery is particularly exciting because quantum coherence is a concept that many of the physicists working on the development of “quantum computers” have incorporated into their designs. Not for the first time, nature got there before the scientists and so far does a better job of “computing” the most efficient way to get energy from A to B. Not that the quantum computer scientists were quick to embrace this idea: Messrs. McFadden and Al-Khalili quote one of them describing his colleagues’ immediate reaction when they saw a New York Times article suggesting that plants might operate as quantum computers: “It’s like, ‘Oh my God, that’s the most crackpot thing I’ve heard in my life.’ ” But they have since changed their tune.
All this is dramatic enough and well worth the price of admission. But the authors have saved the best—if admittedly the most speculative—idea for (nearly) last: that quantum procedures help explain consciousness and the mechanics of thought, as surely as they do photosynthesis. Tracing the process of painting a picture (the authors imagine an artist in Paleolithic times painting a picture of a bison on a cave wall) from the fingertips of the artist back through the muscles and neurons in the arm to the brain, they investigate the chemistry at every step. At one level, this is an entirely causal, mechanistic chain of processes, like that of a machine. But who, or what, is in charge of the machine? Who is pulling the levers? Is there really such thing as a self, or are we merely zombies?
It is an old question, going back to philosophers such as Descartes. How does mind make matter move? The new answer presented here draws from the physics behind those quantum computers. Where an “ordinary” computer can be thought of as operating through a series of switches that can be set to 0 or 1, the power of a quantum computer depends on the ability of quantum entities to be in two states at the same time, known as a superposition. So the switches in a quantum computer are both on and off (set at 0 and set at 1) at the same time. Building on ideas proposed by the Oxford physicist Roger Penrose, Messrs. McFadden and Al-Khalili look at the quantum chemistry that just might be involved in conscious thought. “The scheme,” they say, “is certainly speculative, but it does at least provide a plausible link between the quantum and classical realms in the brain.” After all, if a plant can operate like a quantum computer in carrying out the process of photosynthesis, why couldn’t a human brain act as a quantum computer in carrying out the processes of thought? Given nature’s ability to make use of whatever is available, it would be surprising if it did not. The authors’ Paleolithic artist is “not a zombie,” and neither are you, at least not if their theory is accurate.
After such a daring hypothesis, almost anything would be an anticlimax—even a chapter discussing the puzzle of how life first began. It would seem more natural to have this before the discussion of consciousness, since, after all, life began before it became conscious. Still, this is an important topic that could not be left out of a book such as this. For my (hopefully conscious) mind, though, this is the weakest section of ”Life on the Edge,” the most speculative, and not entirely convincing. There are clearly more questions than answers, but at least this means that there is plenty of work for the next generation of quantum biologists to do.
It may not be necessary, though, to understand how life began to use an understanding of how life operates today at the quantum level to build completely artificial living organisms from the bottom up. Such a process would require what the authors call “living technology” to manufacture from scratch organisms such as microbes that could produce antibiotics tailored to human requirements. This would be quite different from recent experiments with “artificial” life, which involve tinkering with DNA molecules, introducing them into already living cells and persuading those cells to function in accordance with the instructions coded in the new DNA. This top-down approach is inefficient because even after being “adapted” in this way, such modified cells continue to make lots of stuff that is of no use to us. The bottom-up approach would result in what the authors describe as “a brave new world of quantum synthetic living organisms that could free their natural-born relatives from the drudgery of providing humanity with most of its needs.” A fine sentiment—unless, of course, those synthetic organisms turn out to be conscious.
“Life on the Edge” is a fascinating and thought-provoking book that combines solid science, reasonable extrapolation from the known into the unknown, and plausible speculation to give an accessible overview of a revolutionary transformation in our understanding of the living world. I will certainly look at robins with more respect in future.
In this review, Mr. Gribbin suggests the authors might have included a chapter on
"the beginning of life" -- "It
would seem more natural to have this (chapter) before the discussion of
consciousness, since, after all, life began before it became
conscious."
Ay, there's the rub.
The statement begs the question - "Or is it possible that consciousness exists (or existed) prior to life?"
There's no evidence that exists that consciousness came after life. It's only an assumption. I mean it makes sense - we're alive, we think, we breath, we die, no more thinking. Except - there is thinking after we die. Not only is there thinking but there's full consciousness.
And if consciousness can exist outside of life (during near death experiences, the thousands cited in the Aware project by Dr. Sam Parnia, the cites of cases in Mario Beauregard's work and "Brain Wars," Dr. Bruce Greyson's cites of medical cases in his youtube talk "Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?" and numerous others, including many cited in "Flipside" and "It's a Wonderful Afterlife") then we can begin the discussion that leads to the proposition that perhaps it was consciousness that created life.
(Funny, the authors read a NY Times article suggesting plants might operate as quantum computers and their response was "Oh my God, that the most crackpot thing I've heard in my life." "But they've since changed their tune.") So perhaps they'll say the same thing about the idea of consciousness creating life at some point in the future.
There is an increasing body of research that posits that consciousness may exist apart from the brain, or in relation to this article, apart from the physical body or any matter. It may indeed be argued that consciousness helped move molecules and matter along to create life. And there's the conundrum.
If consciousness exists outside of life - outside the brain - or prior to life - who's in charge of how that works? (hint: answers can be found in "Its a Wonderful Afterlife.")
In the research into the "Flipside" there are numerous accounts (transcripts) of people claiming to answer some of these questions either while under deep hypnosis, or during a near death experience, or even while communicating with someone who appears to no longer be on the planet. And they describe something that's dependent on understanding that the physics of the afterlife - for lack of a better term - or that the actual time and space of the other realms than this one, exist with different rules than we do.
And what appears to be millennia over here, seem much different over there - and that the ability for people over there to manipulate energy over here requires focus and an ability to learn how to transfer energy from one place to the next. In other words, their intent and focus and direction of energy over here, is responsible for the creation of life on this planet (and according to their transcripts, for life on other planets as well.) I'm not hypothesizing this to be the case, I'm only reporting that's what these folks have claimed during their near death experience, or between life hypnosis session, or even when asking questions to people no longer on the planet. They claim that we, as conscious energy, along with the guidance of older, wiser souls (for lack of a better term) help guide what life is going to be throughout the universe. Even here.
("Oh My God! That's the most crackpot thing I've ever heard in my life!" On that point, I'd have to agree. But it's not my opinion, I'm just reporting. Don't shoot the messenger.)
So. The answer to the age old question? "What came first, the chicken or the egg" is...
"consciousness came first as it devised (or was responsible for) the process that allowed for the egg to become a chicken."
My two cents. Cluck. Cluck.
Here's an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal about consciousness and birds, as described in the book "Life on the Edge" by Johnjoe McFadden & Jim Al-Khalili.
 |
| From PopSci.com - "Hmmm. And you are?" |
Physics for Bird Brains
Quantum weirdness helps explain how plants make food, animals migrate and humans think.
Photo:
© Kim Taylor/Nature Picture Library/Corbis
In their remarkable book, “Life on the Edge,” Johnjoe McFadden, an expert in molecular genetics, and Jim Al-Khalili, a quantum physicist, join forces to explain many everyday aspects of life in terms of what is often referred to as quantum weirdness. After teasing the reader with an introduction presenting the puzzle of how birds can detect the Earth’s magnetic field and use it for navigation, the authors lead us gently by the hand through discussions of the nature of life itself, right down to the molecular level and the mysteries of quantum physics. This is material that has been covered in many books but nowhere more succinctly and clearly than here. The authors have an easily accessible style, free from jargon, that can make complex issues clear even to the non-scientist.
Life on the Edge
By Johnjoe McFadden & Jim Al-KhaliliCrown, 353 pages, $28
This is a profound realization, because entanglement is such a bizarre concept, that for decades even many physicists doubted that it could be real. Albert Einstein famously referred to it as “spooky action at a distance.” The equations tell us that once two particles have interacted, then forever afterward, no matter how far apart they are, a measurement of one particle will instantaneously affect the properties of the other. As Einstein wrote to his friend Leon Rosenfeld: “Is it not paradoxical? How can the final state of the second particle be influenced by a measurement performed on the first, after all physical connection has ceased between them?” He believed that this paradox highlighted a flaw in quantum theory, and he went to his grave still looking for a better description of the universe. But he was wrong. In the 1980s (and repeatedly since), experiments involving photons, the particles of light, have proved that the spooky action at a distance is real.
In that case, it should be expected that natural processes make use of it. Why shouldn’t they? Life uses whatever is available, whether that thing is food, energy or quantumly entangled particles.
“Pre-quantum” physics—the laws discovered by Isaac Newton—is often referred to as classical physics. “Most biologists,” the authors point out, “still believe that the classical laws are sufficient” to explain photosynthesis, “with light acting like some kind of golf club able to whack the oxygen golf ball out of the carbon dioxide molecule.” But, like Einstein contemplating spooky action at a distance, they are wrong. The key step in the process involves electrons “hopping” from one molecule to another. Some extraordinary experiments described in this book have revealed that this energy is flowing through the plant by, in effect, following several routes simultaneously, thanks to a phenomenon known as coherence. This is a purely quantum effect.
This discovery is particularly exciting because quantum coherence is a concept that many of the physicists working on the development of “quantum computers” have incorporated into their designs. Not for the first time, nature got there before the scientists and so far does a better job of “computing” the most efficient way to get energy from A to B. Not that the quantum computer scientists were quick to embrace this idea: Messrs. McFadden and Al-Khalili quote one of them describing his colleagues’ immediate reaction when they saw a New York Times article suggesting that plants might operate as quantum computers: “It’s like, ‘Oh my God, that’s the most crackpot thing I’ve heard in my life.’ ” But they have since changed their tune.
All this is dramatic enough and well worth the price of admission. But the authors have saved the best—if admittedly the most speculative—idea for (nearly) last: that quantum procedures help explain consciousness and the mechanics of thought, as surely as they do photosynthesis. Tracing the process of painting a picture (the authors imagine an artist in Paleolithic times painting a picture of a bison on a cave wall) from the fingertips of the artist back through the muscles and neurons in the arm to the brain, they investigate the chemistry at every step. At one level, this is an entirely causal, mechanistic chain of processes, like that of a machine. But who, or what, is in charge of the machine? Who is pulling the levers? Is there really such thing as a self, or are we merely zombies?
It is an old question, going back to philosophers such as Descartes. How does mind make matter move? The new answer presented here draws from the physics behind those quantum computers. Where an “ordinary” computer can be thought of as operating through a series of switches that can be set to 0 or 1, the power of a quantum computer depends on the ability of quantum entities to be in two states at the same time, known as a superposition. So the switches in a quantum computer are both on and off (set at 0 and set at 1) at the same time. Building on ideas proposed by the Oxford physicist Roger Penrose, Messrs. McFadden and Al-Khalili look at the quantum chemistry that just might be involved in conscious thought. “The scheme,” they say, “is certainly speculative, but it does at least provide a plausible link between the quantum and classical realms in the brain.” After all, if a plant can operate like a quantum computer in carrying out the process of photosynthesis, why couldn’t a human brain act as a quantum computer in carrying out the processes of thought? Given nature’s ability to make use of whatever is available, it would be surprising if it did not. The authors’ Paleolithic artist is “not a zombie,” and neither are you, at least not if their theory is accurate.
After such a daring hypothesis, almost anything would be an anticlimax—even a chapter discussing the puzzle of how life first began. It would seem more natural to have this before the discussion of consciousness, since, after all, life began before it became conscious. Still, this is an important topic that could not be left out of a book such as this. For my (hopefully conscious) mind, though, this is the weakest section of ”Life on the Edge,” the most speculative, and not entirely convincing. There are clearly more questions than answers, but at least this means that there is plenty of work for the next generation of quantum biologists to do.
It may not be necessary, though, to understand how life began to use an understanding of how life operates today at the quantum level to build completely artificial living organisms from the bottom up. Such a process would require what the authors call “living technology” to manufacture from scratch organisms such as microbes that could produce antibiotics tailored to human requirements. This would be quite different from recent experiments with “artificial” life, which involve tinkering with DNA molecules, introducing them into already living cells and persuading those cells to function in accordance with the instructions coded in the new DNA. This top-down approach is inefficient because even after being “adapted” in this way, such modified cells continue to make lots of stuff that is of no use to us. The bottom-up approach would result in what the authors describe as “a brave new world of quantum synthetic living organisms that could free their natural-born relatives from the drudgery of providing humanity with most of its needs.” A fine sentiment—unless, of course, those synthetic organisms turn out to be conscious.
“Life on the Edge” is a fascinating and thought-provoking book that combines solid science, reasonable extrapolation from the known into the unknown, and plausible speculation to give an accessible overview of a revolutionary transformation in our understanding of the living world. I will certainly look at robins with more respect in future.
—Mr. Gribbin is a visiting fellow in astronomy at the University of Sussex and author of “Computing With Quantum Cats: From Alan Turing to Teleportation.”
 |
| "Larry? Are you in there?" |
Ay, there's the rub.
The statement begs the question - "Or is it possible that consciousness exists (or existed) prior to life?"
There's no evidence that exists that consciousness came after life. It's only an assumption. I mean it makes sense - we're alive, we think, we breath, we die, no more thinking. Except - there is thinking after we die. Not only is there thinking but there's full consciousness.
And if consciousness can exist outside of life (during near death experiences, the thousands cited in the Aware project by Dr. Sam Parnia, the cites of cases in Mario Beauregard's work and "Brain Wars," Dr. Bruce Greyson's cites of medical cases in his youtube talk "Is Consciousness Produced by the Brain?" and numerous others, including many cited in "Flipside" and "It's a Wonderful Afterlife") then we can begin the discussion that leads to the proposition that perhaps it was consciousness that created life.
(Funny, the authors read a NY Times article suggesting plants might operate as quantum computers and their response was "Oh my God, that the most crackpot thing I've heard in my life." "But they've since changed their tune.") So perhaps they'll say the same thing about the idea of consciousness creating life at some point in the future.
There is an increasing body of research that posits that consciousness may exist apart from the brain, or in relation to this article, apart from the physical body or any matter. It may indeed be argued that consciousness helped move molecules and matter along to create life. And there's the conundrum.
 |
| Kids in Huntington Gardens walking through a wormhole. |
If consciousness exists outside of life - outside the brain - or prior to life - who's in charge of how that works? (hint: answers can be found in "Its a Wonderful Afterlife.")
In the research into the "Flipside" there are numerous accounts (transcripts) of people claiming to answer some of these questions either while under deep hypnosis, or during a near death experience, or even while communicating with someone who appears to no longer be on the planet. And they describe something that's dependent on understanding that the physics of the afterlife - for lack of a better term - or that the actual time and space of the other realms than this one, exist with different rules than we do.
And what appears to be millennia over here, seem much different over there - and that the ability for people over there to manipulate energy over here requires focus and an ability to learn how to transfer energy from one place to the next. In other words, their intent and focus and direction of energy over here, is responsible for the creation of life on this planet (and according to their transcripts, for life on other planets as well.) I'm not hypothesizing this to be the case, I'm only reporting that's what these folks have claimed during their near death experience, or between life hypnosis session, or even when asking questions to people no longer on the planet. They claim that we, as conscious energy, along with the guidance of older, wiser souls (for lack of a better term) help guide what life is going to be throughout the universe. Even here.
("Oh My God! That's the most crackpot thing I've ever heard in my life!" On that point, I'd have to agree. But it's not my opinion, I'm just reporting. Don't shoot the messenger.)
So. The answer to the age old question? "What came first, the chicken or the egg" is...
"consciousness came first as it devised (or was responsible for) the process that allowed for the egg to become a chicken."
My two cents. Cluck. Cluck.
#3. 
