IS THE CELL CONSCIOUS?
"The
corrective to Beast-mind privileging of cyber-linguistics over source
consciousness might begin with a re-write of our understanding of the
fundamentals of bio-chemistry.
Take for example, the process of the phosphorylation of ADP to form ATP, the source of energy within the cell.
ADP + Phosphate + Energy <=> ATP
This reaction is essential for all processes within the cell, from photosynthesis and protein and lipid synthesis to lysomatic digestion. Yet no chemist can make this reaction occur in vitro, under normal pressures, temperature and concentrations. This reaction, as written, is the fantasy of organic chemists who can only guess at or insinuate the complex sequence of events leading to the creation of one molecule of ATP.
ADP (Adenine di-phosphate) is built up from amino acids assembled in mitochondria by the process of dehydration synthesis. Think of a bunch of Lego blocks being put together by a child prodigy to make toy tractors at the rate of 1000 toy tractors a second and this gives some idea of what is going on in just one pore of one fragment of membrane within an organelle following orders sent from the nucleus of a cell.
The construction of a protein requires the transcription of DNA to mRNA at precise replication fork points. The creation of long chains of proteins and enzymes requires the orchestration of hundreds of ribosomes, themselves containing complex strips of proteins called transfer RNA. The amount produced is in turn regulated by a next level of control monitoring factors such as isotonic pH levels outside the cell wall as well as the proton gradient across it which changes from instant to instant.
The above reaction equation is no more ‘simply’ a chemical reaction than is the writing of a Shakespeare sonnet. It can be characterized neither as a chemical reaction nor even as a photo-electric reaction. It is a cognitive reaction, mediated by a consciously aware feedback mechanism originating in the nucleus or ‘brain’ of the cell. From 20 available amino acids (laevo or left-handed versions), it assembles keratin for hair and nails; hormones, enzymes, skin – and has an inbuilt mechanism to allow for variation within genomes, such as skin pigment or bio-luminescence, that may be useful, and, if deemed so by the cellular/genetic governance, become separate phenotypes. Note that this does not require a natural selection process as the prime driver of genetic adaption since these processes are monitored by exquisite conscious feedback mechanisms that rely on chance permutations but not necessarily ones that confer survival advantages sifted through thousands of generations. Darwinism is an outdated mechanistic theory belonging to the 19th century. The key to genetic novelty lies in the cell. Evolution begins and ends there. The cell is the supreme chemist. It makes the most gifted molecular bio-engineer look like a bumbling amateur. Here, for example, is the anti-codon sequence for tRNA uptake that codes for methylethlyamphetamine:
UUCGCUGG
These combine the two sets of amino acids phenylalanine and alanine.
But I have omitted the codons for the required deaminase, a complex enzyme. Whatever ‘Breaking Bad’ wants you to believe about making meth, forget it. The cell’s chemical plant uses the phenotype method – rapid, precise, clean, odourless and 100% pure, with the added advantage of needing no smelly pre-cursors or dangerous by-products. This is how hormones, steroids and designer psychotropic drugs are manufactured in case you didn’t already know this. The utilisation of microbes to synthesize drugs is nothing new: the micro-organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been used over millennia to metabolize sugar to ethanol. Yes, we drink the waste product of a fungus and regard it a great drug! How primitive we humans are. I’m convinced that BAUER and PFIZER have attempted to use nano-technology to mimic the microbe’s unique abilities, but the results have not been as expected in the case of some substances produced by living cells.
Why is this so? The answer should be clear from what I’ve outlined already. Consciousness. This is the missing vital ingredient. In vitro chemistry does not replicate the units of consciousness that go into its cell-synthesised equivalent.
This is a hard lesson for scientists, who keep trying, even in the face of quantum paradoxes, to subtract consciousness from their equations. You push it out one door; it enters from another, so why not embrace it? Why not study it? Why not formulate theories about its operation? Why not attempt to discover the laws governing its gestation and manifestation? Where is the true science of consciousness and why has it been withheld from us? "
from 'This Mortal Coil'
Take for example, the process of the phosphorylation of ADP to form ATP, the source of energy within the cell.
ADP + Phosphate + Energy <=> ATP
This reaction is essential for all processes within the cell, from photosynthesis and protein and lipid synthesis to lysomatic digestion. Yet no chemist can make this reaction occur in vitro, under normal pressures, temperature and concentrations. This reaction, as written, is the fantasy of organic chemists who can only guess at or insinuate the complex sequence of events leading to the creation of one molecule of ATP.
ADP (Adenine di-phosphate) is built up from amino acids assembled in mitochondria by the process of dehydration synthesis. Think of a bunch of Lego blocks being put together by a child prodigy to make toy tractors at the rate of 1000 toy tractors a second and this gives some idea of what is going on in just one pore of one fragment of membrane within an organelle following orders sent from the nucleus of a cell.
The construction of a protein requires the transcription of DNA to mRNA at precise replication fork points. The creation of long chains of proteins and enzymes requires the orchestration of hundreds of ribosomes, themselves containing complex strips of proteins called transfer RNA. The amount produced is in turn regulated by a next level of control monitoring factors such as isotonic pH levels outside the cell wall as well as the proton gradient across it which changes from instant to instant.
The above reaction equation is no more ‘simply’ a chemical reaction than is the writing of a Shakespeare sonnet. It can be characterized neither as a chemical reaction nor even as a photo-electric reaction. It is a cognitive reaction, mediated by a consciously aware feedback mechanism originating in the nucleus or ‘brain’ of the cell. From 20 available amino acids (laevo or left-handed versions), it assembles keratin for hair and nails; hormones, enzymes, skin – and has an inbuilt mechanism to allow for variation within genomes, such as skin pigment or bio-luminescence, that may be useful, and, if deemed so by the cellular/genetic governance, become separate phenotypes. Note that this does not require a natural selection process as the prime driver of genetic adaption since these processes are monitored by exquisite conscious feedback mechanisms that rely on chance permutations but not necessarily ones that confer survival advantages sifted through thousands of generations. Darwinism is an outdated mechanistic theory belonging to the 19th century. The key to genetic novelty lies in the cell. Evolution begins and ends there. The cell is the supreme chemist. It makes the most gifted molecular bio-engineer look like a bumbling amateur. Here, for example, is the anti-codon sequence for tRNA uptake that codes for methylethlyamphetamine:
UUCGCUGG
These combine the two sets of amino acids phenylalanine and alanine.
But I have omitted the codons for the required deaminase, a complex enzyme. Whatever ‘Breaking Bad’ wants you to believe about making meth, forget it. The cell’s chemical plant uses the phenotype method – rapid, precise, clean, odourless and 100% pure, with the added advantage of needing no smelly pre-cursors or dangerous by-products. This is how hormones, steroids and designer psychotropic drugs are manufactured in case you didn’t already know this. The utilisation of microbes to synthesize drugs is nothing new: the micro-organism Saccharomyces cerevisiae has been used over millennia to metabolize sugar to ethanol. Yes, we drink the waste product of a fungus and regard it a great drug! How primitive we humans are. I’m convinced that BAUER and PFIZER have attempted to use nano-technology to mimic the microbe’s unique abilities, but the results have not been as expected in the case of some substances produced by living cells.
Why is this so? The answer should be clear from what I’ve outlined already. Consciousness. This is the missing vital ingredient. In vitro chemistry does not replicate the units of consciousness that go into its cell-synthesised equivalent.
This is a hard lesson for scientists, who keep trying, even in the face of quantum paradoxes, to subtract consciousness from their equations. You push it out one door; it enters from another, so why not embrace it? Why not study it? Why not formulate theories about its operation? Why not attempt to discover the laws governing its gestation and manifestation? Where is the true science of consciousness and why has it been withheld from us? "
from 'This Mortal Coil'
No comments:
Post a Comment