Genomic Consciousness
sekhar dmr
Wednesday, 05 August 2009 16:47 UTC
Abstract.
Consciousness is generally understood as an activity related to the brain. If we consider brain as hard ware, mind is the soft ware that runs the brain where the psychological programmes are located. The placebo effect indicates the self programmability of the mind. Frederic Peters describes consciousness as, I-ness, Now-ness and Here-ness. In his words: As the primary reference frame of active waking cognition, this recursive I-here-now processing generates a zone of subjective self-awareness in terms of which it feels like something to be oneself here and now. The consciousness Peters referring is the consciousness related to the brain.
We know that the brain and body are developed from a single cell embryo. All the information / programmes required to develop the brain are in the genome [of the embryo] and genome expectedly interprets the information and executes the programmes that result into the development of the body and the brain. For example gene complexes bi thorax, BX-C and antennapedia, ANT-C are reported to play a central role in programming the development of organism. Further biological rhythms in an organism are due to gene clocks which are automatically aligned with the external planetary rhythms. The alignment of bio-rhythms with planetary rhythms suggests that the gene clocks in fact sense the external environment. Thus it is from gene clocks the organism senses the time [Now-ness] and its own location [Here-ness]. If brain has consciousness, genome must also have a precursor form of consciousness with genomic i-ness which is the spring head of the I-ness.
DNA molecules show three extraordinary properties [a] they repair themselves [b] they produce their own replicates [c ] some times during replication they produce variant types. The two properties, self repairing and replication of DNA are analogous to the primary instincts self preservation and procreation. DNA molecules have adenine-thymine [AT] and guanine-cytosine [GC] nucleotide pairs fixed as sequences along the twisted double helix. G is bound [triple bond] more strongly to C than A to [double bond] T and hence we expect the presence of more GC pairs as favored by chemical thermodynamics which surprisingly is not the case. If GC and AT pairs are sequenced randomly then we expect GC and AT pairs to be at 50% each. This is also not the case. In fact the GC pair content in higher organism is in the range of 40% to 45%. Volkenshtein notes The replacement of the pair A-T by G-C is evidently thermodynamically favorable since G is bound to C more strongly than A to T. If it were for thermodynamics alone, the relative G-C content in DNA should have increased during the evolution. Let us look at the organization of the genome. The genome of mammals and birds are reported to have a GC content varying from 30% to 60%. Further the genome may be classified into [putative] isochors [regions or fragments] with varying content of GC pairs. The GC content in some putative isochors as low as 30%. The isochors are non randomly arranged i e the genome is structured from the point of view of isochors. With stable [GC rich fragments] and unstable [AT rich or GC poor fragments] states the genome resembles an information processing device. As having more AT pairs in the genome is thermodynamically unfavorable there must be conscious effort to maintain that state. Thus genome is consciously self programmed and the genomic consciousness is the spring head.
http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:DMR_Sekhar
Updated 05 August 2009 16:54 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Dear Rama Neel,
I read your comment again. You wrote, _ Rest of the facts about DNA GC content is debatable. Generally, prokaryotes has more AT in their genome than the eukaryotes. And in eukaryotes, some genes or even entire regions are specifically high GC rich. This is probably a regulatory mechanism, to control gene expression. How important is the GC content for the chromosome stability is not clearly known. In chromosomes, DNA is heavily packed by histones and non-histone proteins, that in fact stabilizes the DNA structure. It would be safe to assume that the AT rich prokaryotic DNA is probably the most favoured one because prokaryotes require fast DNA replication as well as transcription. If the genome is high in GC, it would require more effort and extra machinary to act fast. In eukaryotes the situation is different and a major part of DNA evolved into stable GC rich regions. However, these facts does not indicate in any way that the genome is capable of self-programming. So, the argument that the genome has consciousness is a weaker one._[1. As I clarified earlier when we talk of DNA/ Genome/ or Flow of information from DNA it is implied that we are talking these issues in the cell environment. If I say that if we ignite lignite we will get heat and light, it is implied that the ignition is in the earth’s environment that contains oxygen.
[2. Kindly appreciate that having more GC pairs is like water flowing from over head tank to the ground. Having more AT pairs is like water flowing from the ground level to the over head tank which needs a conscious effort such as operating a pump.Thanks,
DMR Sekhar -
sekhar dmr argues that, ‘If brain has consciousness, genome must also have precursor form of consciousness…’
Here are two states of consciousness, one within the other, and yet each connected, of course, so that genetic systems are really systems of consciousness. These are further entwined within the consciousness that you recognize through experience. [ ‘But in principle Buddhism asserts that it is possible to recognize experientially what consciousness is and identify it.’ (sekhar dmr), on a separate thread] Given the genetic makeup you now have, your conscious intents and purposes may constitute part of the effort to attain and maintain certain genetic states. Your intents and purposes thus act as triggers that activate whatever genetic aspects that you need, such as the possibility of activating certain genetic sequences to restore the imbalances created by Diabetes-I say . It may be that the survival of species is far more dependent upon subjective activities than on our physical ones.
The great facility and adaptability of the human species are dependent upon an interplay between genetic preciseness and genetic freedom. This is made posible by the principle of uncertainty. Otherwise we would have been locked into overspecialization as a species. The possibility of creative change must always be present to insure the species’ resiliency.
At microscopic levels there is no way to predict with complete certainty the development of any genetic element. This is because its activity is also involved with relationships that do not show in any of the physical calculations, such as energy transformations, as indicated in the abstract ‘Genomic Consciousness’.
I suggest that your thoughts, feelings, desires and intent ( and perhaps, as has been mentioned on this thread, your reincarnational knowledge) modify genetic structures, bring certain latent characteristics into actualization, minimize others, as through the experience of your life you use your free will and constantly make new decisions.
I suggest the genetic system is not closed, therefore. The genes do not simply hold information without any reference to the body’s living system. It does not exist , then
the genetic structurelike some highly complicated mechanism already programmed, but can be self-programmed and with input from outside influences. It does not function blindly once it is set in operation, but has the possibility of modification.In his abstract ‘Genomic Consciousness’, sekhar dmr states, ‘As having more AT pairs in the genome is thermodynamically unfavorable there must be conscious effort to maintain that state. Thus genome is consciously self-programmed and the genomic consciousness is the spring head.’
-
Dear Daniel Chang,
Thanks for the detailed comment. Many of the mechanisms you are suggesting are useful in testing the model of genopsych. Similar suggestions are made by Chris King also. I will surely tally genopsych with other published material in the second stage. It will be of great help for me if you can give the references of the publications of the mechanisms you are suggesting.
Thanks,
DMR Sekhar. -
Dear Sekhar,
I find your abstract both informative and provocative. Undoubtedly there are still a plethora of unexplained phenomena that exist within the genome of an organism. Whether or not the genome has an innate consciousness, however, may be difficult to prove.
As you suggest, the less stable, AT rich GC poor, DNA fragments would likely not exist randomly given that it is less favorable thermodynamically. It may be worthy to consider that DNA did come after RNA as a method for maintaining data integrity. Hoogsteen base pairing and other alternative hydrogen bonding methods may have contributed to higher stability in RNA that did not transfer over to DNA. However, DNA may have been forced to maintain the ratio of AT/GC bonding since the tRNA anti-codons that interpret RNA in the process of translation had already been established. I will give the disclaimer that I am merely speculating.
You also state that, “Further, biological rhythms in an organism are due to gene clocks which are automatically aligned with the external planetary rhythms. The alignment of bio-rhythms with planetary rhythms suggests that the gene clocks in fact sense the external environment.” In your summation of genomic consciousness, I believe you imply that the genome is somehow “aware” of these planetary alignments due to a gene clock.
I agree completely that biological rhythms in an organism are aligned with the planetary rhythms (particularly with the sun and the moon). However, there is less proof to substantiate that the proximate cause of such alignment is due to a gene clock. Perhaps organisms who did not properly align were less fit and did not survive to reproduce (this fits nicely with Darwin’s theory). Due to this selection, many organisms have evolved to follow a 24 hour schedule.
A lot of inspiration into the field of self-evolution/replication can be seen in the realm of computer science. Self-evolving code with the ability to replicate and introduce mutation have been created. It may be worth investigating: http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/455/breeding-computer-code
-Alex
-
Dear Alex,
Thanks for reading the abstract and the comment. Alex, to maintain more AT pairs in the genome the cell has to work consuming matter and energy. How that works may be explained by studying the bio chemical processes in the cell. But why that works? What is the driving force?Yes those organisms that can synchronise the internal bio rhythms with external planetary rhythms [say day and night cycles] are healthy and survive. A disturbed synchronisation is ill health for example jet lag.
I have an observation: Computers may have phantom consciousness imparted by conscious beings but phantom consciousness is no consciousness.
Thanks,
DMR Sekhar -
Sekhar,
The act of maintaining more AT pairs in the genome, I believe, is for two reasons. Firstly, as mentioned before in this forum, it is likely that the excess work done to maintain higher levels of AT pairs is coupled with other favorable thermodynamic processes. The important question that you bring up is what is the driving force? I believe it has to do with states of equilibrium. A lower state of thermodynamic equilibrium would likely involve fewer AT pairs. However, by doing more work to incorporate these other AT pairs, a higher state of equilibrium is achieved for the organism. Natural selection probably plays a huge role: organisms that developed this higher thermodynamic state were able to achieve more diversity and were more fit.
My other point was that DNA evolved retrospectively as a means for storing information from RNA, which does so for proteins. It may have been the case that GC richness was more common in earlier, less complex organisms. DNA evolved to code for proteins specified in these GC rich organisms. However, as newer proteins were introduced by mutations, transpositions, etc. AT pairs may have randomly started to accumulate (via natural selection). The DNA system of coding for proteins through Transcription→ translation was already established for a GC rich environment. It was easier, evolutionarily, to allow for higher AT content to develop in complex organisms than it would have been to come up with a completely new set of t-RNA anticodons, ribosomes, and other complex replication machinery to maintain GC richness. This is why retrospectively we may see the AT content as a thermodynamic inefficiency, but in reality, it may have been the easiest path to take over the course of evolution.
As for computers, I do not believe (or hope) that we have introduced computers with actual consciousness (or phantom consciousness). My observation is that the three main criteria you described 1. Self-repair, 2. Self-replication, 3. Mutation, have been introduced to computer code. Despite the presence of all three criteria, I would still not consider the code to be conscious.
DNA, much like computer data, is digital and has the ability to replicate itself, and through natural selection(and the passage of time) it can select beneficial mutations (I should be careful in using transitive verbs when DNA is the subject of the sentence). I see the analogous case in some computer experiments.
Regards,
Alex -
Dear Alex,
What is the difference between a bird standing on the ground and the same bird in flight? The bird on the ground is thermodynamically more stable than when it is in flight. The bird has to fly against gravity for which it makes a conscious effort. Similarly if we have more AT pairs in the genome means that there is some sort of conscious effort. There is decreased entropy [increased order in terms of genetic programs if AT pairs are more] in the genome which is more than compensated by an increase in the entropy when we consider the cell [in which the genome is located] and its environment. But why and what maintains high AT pairs [in the higher organism] if it is not a conscious effort from within the cell.
Let us remember the mechanism of natural selection which is a two stage mechanism [1. production of variant types and [2. survival of the fittest. While the fittest is selected by the environment, it has no role or influence on the production of the variant types. Thus the production of variants is due to the internal processes of the organism in particular the genome where the genetic programs are recorded and evolved. This suggests that there must be some form of consciousness in the genome. Saying that the genomic processes are internal also means that genome is self programmed. This in fact resolves the question raised by Volkensthein.
Any suggestion that genome is programmed by external factors violates the idea of natural selection. This leads us to the idea that acquired characters may be inherited [the epigenetic approach] which is not in line with natural selection.
Finally is natural selection just a mechanical process or it is driven by some sort of consciousness? If the process of evolution is not consciousness driven then we human beings may be just very large organic molecules no different from say soap molecules in many respects! It is worth noting that Darwinists explain natural selection as a mechanical process which fails to answer the problem raised by Volkensthein.
Thanks,
DMR Sekhar.
Results
-
