Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=kcib20

Download by: [27.7.66.158] Date: 25 February 2016, At: 11:48

Communicative & Integrative Biology

ISSN: (Print) 1942-0889 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/kcib20

Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view

Bhakti Niskama Shanta

To cite this article: Bhakti Niskama Shanta (2015) Life and consciousness – The Vedāntic view,Communicative & Integrative Biology, 8:5, e1085138, DOI: 10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

© 2015 The Author(s). Published withlicense by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC© SriChaitanya Saraswat Institute

Accepted author version posted online: 09Oct 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7503

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Life and consciousness – The Vedantic view

Bhakti Niskama Shanta*Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute; Govinda Shetty Palya, Konappana Agrahara; Electronic City, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

In the past, philosophers, scientists,and even the general opinion, had no

problem in accepting the existence ofconsciousness in the same way as the exis-tence of the physical world. After theadvent of Newtonian mechanics, scienceembraced a complete materialistic con-ception about reality. Scientists startedproposing hypotheses like abiogenesis(origin of first life from accumulation ofatoms and molecules) and the Big Bangtheory (the explosion theory for explain-ing the origin of universe). How the uni-verse came to be what it is now is a keyphilosophical question. The hypothesisthat it came from Nothing (as proposedby Stephen Hawking, among others),proves to be dissembling, since the quan-tum vacuum can hardly be considered avoid. In modern science, it is generallyassumed that matter existed before theuniverse came to be. Modern sciencehypothesizes that the manifestation oflife on Earth is nothing but a mere incre-ment in the complexity of matter — andhence is an outcome of evolution of mat-ter (chemical evolution) following theBig Bang. After the manifestation of life,modern science believed that chemicalevolution transformed itself into biologi-cal evolution, which then had caused theentire biodiversity on our planet. Theontological view of the organism as acomplex machine presumes life as just achance occurrence, without any innerpurpose. This approach in science leavesno room for the subjective aspect of con-sciousness in its attempt to know theworld as the relationships among forces,atoms, and molecules. On the otherhand, the Vedantic view states that theorigin of everything material and nonma-terial is sentient and absolute (uncondi-tioned). Thus, sentient life is primitiveand reproductive of itself – omne vivum

ex vivo – life comes from life. This is thescientifically verified law of experience.Life is essentially cognitive and con-scious. And, consciousness, which is fun-damental, manifests itself in thegradational forms of all sentient andinsentient nature. In contrast to the ideaof objective evolution of bodies, as envi-sioned by Darwin and followers, Vedantaadvocates the idea of subjective evolutionof consciousness as the developing princi-ple of the world. In this paper, anattempt has been made to highlight a fewrelevant developments supporting a sen-tient view of life in scientific research,which has caused a paradigm shift in ourunderstanding of life and its origin.

Introduction

Following a reductionist approach,there is a general consensus among biolo-gists that the body of an animal is beingheld up by muscles, bones, tendons, andso on. However, despite the presence ofthese anatomical parts, without conscious-ness, the body will collapse on the ground.Hence, consciousness is a force within thebody and only when it is conscious it willstand up and perform its usual activities.The moment consciousness leaves, thebody collapses. The concept of awareness(an activity of consciousness) is of majorinterest for anaesthesiologists, and in thisbranch of science, it is believed thatunconsciousness brings the forgetfulnessof pain. However, when patients undergodeep ether anesthesia, on recovery, somecould not recall their surgery or the discus-sion, but some develop new psychologicalsymptoms. In a while, after full recoveryand under hypnosis, it is found that somepatients recall the spoken word, identifyspeech, and interpret meaning. In some

Keywords: artificial intelligence, brain,consciousness, cell sentience, Darwinism,machine, mind, origin of life, organism,teleology

© Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Institute*Correspondence to: Bhakti Niskama Shanta; Email:bns@scsiscs.org

Submitted: 07/07/2015

Revised: 08/16/2015

Accepted: 08/17/2015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19420889.2015.1085138

This is an Open Access article distributed under theterms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestrictednon-commercial use, distribution, and reproductionin any medium, provided the original work is prop-erly cited. The moral rights of the named author(s)have been asserted.

www.tandfonline.com e1085138-1Communicative & Integrative Biology

Communicative & Integrative Biology 8:5, e1085138; September/October 2015; Published with license by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

OPINION ARTICLE

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

cases it may lead to life-threatening psy-chological trauma.1 In other words, in aliving body, it is not just the molecules,bones, tissues and so forth that are all inall. The body has a foundation uponconsciousness.2

By metaphorically assuming an organ-ism as a machine, biologists try to come toterms with many of its properties and fea-tures. Following this approach, biologistshave only made an attempt to discover thephysical properties and chemical processesof different biomolecules present withinthe body of a living organism. Suchmechanical investigations of living organ-isms have always failed to provide any suc-cessful mechanical explanations of livingorganisms. Therefore, such a reductionis-tic analysis is just a pretension to studylife, but in actuality it only deals with thestudy of dead matter (abiology). As weknow very well, “an organism is some-thing which the scientific method cannotdeal with; it is a hard, round, smooth nut,which experimental analysis can neithercrack nor lever open at any point. As soonas a hole is made in it, it explodes like aPrince Rupert drop and vanishes away.”3

Noble prize winner, Szent-Gy€orgyi alsobrilliantly presented the outcome of themechanistic view of an organism:

“As scientists attempt to understand aliving system, they move down fromdimension to dimension, from one levelof complexity to the next lower level. I fol-lowed this course in my own studies. Iwent from anatomy to the study of tissues,then to electron microscopy and chemis-try, and finally to quantum mechanics.This downward journey through the scaleof dimensions has its irony, for in mysearch for the secret of life, I ended upwith atoms and electrons, which have nolife at all. Somewhere along the line lifehas run out through my fingers. So, in myold age, I am now retracing my steps, try-ing to fight my way back.”4

Traditionally, in both eastern and west-ern philosophy, life is understood as a cog-nitive or sentient principle. Sentiencecannot be manufactured artificially by anynoble mechanical and chemical arrange-ment of dead atoms and molecules. In theancient eastern philosophy based on theVedantic or Bhagavat paradigm, for exam-ple, the invocation of �Srı I�sopanisad

provides the concept of ‘Organic Whol-ism’:5 “om purnam adah purnam idampurnat purnam udacyate purnasya purnamadaya purnam evava�sisyate – The ‘OrganicWhole’ produces ‘organic wholes’. An‘organic whole’ cannot arise from partsthat have to be assembled. That processcan only produce inorganic, mechanicalor chemical processes, not living organ-isms.” A similar conclusion was made byRudolph Virchow in 1858, “omnis cellulae cellula” (“every cell comes from a cell”).6

In 1864, Louis Pasteur also demonstratedthat life cannot arise from non-life (abio-genesis is impossible) and with experimen-tal evidence, established the theory ofbiogenesis: Omne vivum ex vivo – Lifecomes from Life. The zygote to adultembryonic development of every speciesalso follows a fixed unique blueprint lead-ing to the production of an adult organ-ism of that particular species. Drieschexplained this in a sequence of resultswhere embryological growth progressedby the interactions of the nucleus andcytoplasm:

“Insofar as it contains a nucleus, everycell, during development, carries the total-ity of all primordia; insofar as it contains aspecific cytoplasmic cell body, it is specifi-cally enabled by this to respond to specificeffects only. When nuclear material is acti-vated, then, under its guidance, the cyto-plasm of its cell that had first influencedthe nucleus is in turn changed, and thusthe basis is established for a new elemen-tary process, which itself is not only theresult but also a cause”.7

This spectacular realization of the con-cept of nuclear-cytoplasmic interactionand nuclear equivalence finally forcedDriesch to reject the vision of the livingorganism as a physical machine. Examin-ing natural history, researchers have alsoreported that many living organisms neverevolved into different novel anatomicalstructures; rather, they continued unal-tered, even over a period of hundreds ofmillions of years.8 This non-changingaspect of an organism is known as stasis inthe fossil record. In molecular genetics,organisms deliberately and aggressively actto correct or destroy random mutationalchanges.9 Many similar observations inthe literature establish that species preser-vation is a natural characteristic of life.

Life’s ability to preserve its own speciesoffers a significant challenge to Darwiniangradualism. Living organisms exhibitmany such overtly noticeable goal-orientedor teleological activities (self-determina-tion, self-formation, self-preservation, self-reproduction, self-restitution and so on),which make them distinct from insentientmechanical and chemical systems. Dar-win’s Origin of Species invokes naturalselection to explain the goal-driven activi-ties of the living organisms, but insists thatrandommutations are exclusively responsi-ble for the gradual but steady appearance ofmore complicated organisms. This irratio-nal inability to scientifically explain hownovel body types arise in study of life andits evolution is the major deficiency of Dar-winism.10 Despite that, right from mid19th century to the last few decades of20th century, biology witnessed a completedominance of this Darwin-imposed mech-anistic insentient picture for sentient livingorganism. Such an incorrect representationof life (mechanistic insentient picture forsentient living organism) can be called abi-ology. On the other hand, as we will discussin this paper, 21st century biology stronglypresents the case for the sentient nature ofall living organisms, thus rejecting anymajor role for Darwinian objective evolu-tion and trying to understand the evolutionof sentience. The present article is anattempt to elaborate how earlier ruledout concepts of genuine biology havebeen again substantiated by empiricalevidence.

Ubiquity of Consciousness

In the seventeenth century, the Frenchphilosopher Ren�e Descartes claimed thatonly the human body has a soul, and allother organisms are mere automatonsmade of meat and bones. In Descartes’words “Animals are like robots: they can-not reason or feel pain.”11 In Introductionto Animal Rights, Gary Francione describesthe anticipated consequences of this Car-tesian view.

“Descartes and his followers performedexperiments in which they nailed animalsby their paws onto boards and cut themopen to reveal their beating hearts. Theyburned, scalded, and mutilated animals in

e1085138-2 Volume 8 Issue 5Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

every conceivable manner. When the ani-mals reacted as though they were sufferingpain, Descartes dismissed the reaction asno different from the sound of a machinethat was functioning improperly. A cryingdog, Descartes maintained, is no differentfrom a whining gear that needs oil.”12

Based on this ideology, many innocentanimals are treated cruelly on a daily basisfor the purpose of food, entertainment,research, and profit. Influenced by such aline of thought, most of the scientistswere also thinking that only humans areconscious and all other creatures are not.However, the ubiquity of consciousnessin all living organisms is an attractivealternative. The Cambridge Declarationon Consciousness in Non-Human Ani-mals was publicly proclaimed and signedby leading scientists at the First AnnualFrancis Crick Memorial Conference in2012.13 Moreover, Anthony J. Trewavasand Franti�sek Balu�ska state that“consciousness in its many forms couldwell be ubiquitous, even down to the sim-plest of organisms.”14 They discuss thevarious published results that establish thepresence of consciousness in varieties oforganisms, even in those which do nothave brain organ (plants and unicellularorganisms like bacteria). Eshel Ben-Jacobwas a pioneer in the study of bacterialintelligence and social behaviors of bacte-ria. Ben-Jacob has stated that all organ-isms, and even the most primitive(fundamental) ones, must be able to sensethe environment and perform internalinformation processing for thriving onlatent information embedded in the com-plexity of their environment.15 He thenproposed that by acting together, bacteriacan perform this most elementary cogni-tive function more efficiently, as can beillustrated by their cooperative behavior.The fundamental (primitive) elements ofcognition in such systems include inter-pretation of (chemical) messages, discrim-ination between internal and externalinformation, and some self versus non-selfdistinction (peers and cheaters).15 Unicel-lular organisms display learning, memory,anticipation, risk management, and otheraspects of cognitive behavior.16 There-fore, strong evidence from cellular biologyis forcing the biologists to accept that eventhe smallest cells are sentient beings.17

Individual Cell Sentience in EachCell of Multicellular Organisms

We must note that not only the unicel-lular organisms display cognitive behavior,but that even individual cells in the multi-cellular organisms exhibit individual cog-nitive behavior. Gametes of themulticellular living entities display sen-tient-like cell-cell communication andchemotaxis.18 Sperm cells and oocytes useseveral cognitive transmitters.19 Evenplant cells have the sensory perceptionsand the ability to integrate these multiplesensory perceptions into adaptiveactions.20 The plant cells and neurons inother multicellular organisms producesentient action potentials.21 Root cells ofplants exhibit sentient features at the tran-sition zone interpolated between the apicalmeristem and elongation region.22

There is also ample empirical evidencethat establishes cell sentience from the per-spective of cell functions. Cells can cogni-tively read their environment, analyze thereceived information and then execute thenecessary action to continue their sur-vival.23 This coordinated cell action isknown as cell signaling, which substanti-ates the possibility that the cell too has amind. Living cells regulate practicallyevery cell function, including DNA syn-thesis, RNA synthesis, protein synthesis,cell division, cell differentiation, morpho-genesis, and neuroendocrine regulation.24

Cells cognitively monitor different cellularprocesses and if there is either a mistake ora damage, a cell can detect the problem. Acell activates a checkpoint and stops theentire cycle until all has been set accuratelyto further advance the cycle.25 Cells exe-cute programmed cell death where theyperform suicide by following an organizedcascade of events, known as apoptosis.26

Cells of multicellular organism use variouscell receptors for various functions. Tocoordinate the functions in cell communi-ties, they use the integration-receptorswhich respond to information signals. Indifferent environments, using intercellularsignaling molecules cells can select andexecute various essential actions.27 Iden-tity receptors are also known as self-recep-tors, or histocompatibility-receptors, andthey help the cells to have individual andcollective identity.28 Therefore, they help

the cellular communities to collectivelyrespond to a central command – and areused by the immune system in the multi-cellular organisms to discriminate the selffrom the invader.

We should not be under the miscon-ception that biologists are the only oneswith a monopoly on the study and under-standing of life. In this regard,Schr€odinger can be an inspiration for all.Although a quantum physicist and, not abiologist, Schr€odinger in 1944 wrote aclassic monograph entitled, What is life?29

The structure of the material carrier ofinformation from one life form to another(genetic information) and living organ-isms feeding upon their negative entropyare the 2 well known ideas of Schr€odingerin What is life? In this essay andsome other works, Schr€odinger also devel-oped his thoughts on the nature of con-sciousness and Self, specifically from aVedantic perspective. Quoting Vedanta,Schr€odinger was mainly trying to explainthat consciousness is only one, singular,identifiable with its universal source(Brahman) and he believed that the per-ceived spatial and temporal plurality ofconsciousness is merely an appearance orillusion (maya). However, it is a commonmisconception that is found among themonists (Sripad Adi Shankaracharya’sKevala Advaita or Mayavada philosophy)in Indian Vedantic tradition. The verse2.12,30,31 from �Srımad Bhagavad-gıtacompletely refutes the idea of singularityof consciousness, where Bhagavan SriKrishna says to Arjuna: “na tv evaha �m jatunasa �m na tva �m neme janadhipah na caivana bhavis

˙yamah sarve vayam atah param –

Never was there a time when you, I or allthese kings did not exist, just as we exist inthe present, so have we existed in the past,so shall we continue to exist in the future.”Therefore, according to the Vedanticview, the plurality of individuals is an eter-nal fact, and it is confirmed in other Vedicsources (Kat

˙ha Upanis

˙ad 2.2.13 says: nityo

nityana �m cetana�s cetananam – We areeternal, we are many, and Supreme Abso-lute is also eternal, but He is one) and byauthentic teachers like Sripad RamanujaAcharya and other Vais

˙n˙ava Acaryas. NPR

also reported in 2010, “there are 10 timesmore microbial cells on and in our bodiesthan there are human cells. That means

www.tandfonline.com e1085138-3Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

that we’re 90 percent microbial and10 percent human. . .”32 Apart from ourown individuality, we must also accept theindividualities of all those microbes onand in our bodies. We cannot deny theindividuality of all those microbes, by stat-ing that their individuality is mere illusion(maya). In the healthy body of a multicel-lular organism, every individual cell,despite having its own individuality, ismeant to work for the welfare of the wholebody. Similarly, Vedanta advocates thatwe are living in an ‘Organic Whole’ andevery individual unit of this whole ismeant to dedicate itself for the satisfactionof the Center – the adi-purus

˙a or primeval

personal Absolute. In contrast to Darwin-ism, symbiogenesis proclaims that life didnot take over the globe by competition,but by cooperation. In the body of anorganism, there are different organs likeheart, kidneys, lungs and so on, whichperform different tasks to serve the func-tion of the body as a whole. One organdoes not try to become another. In thesimilar manner, different living entitiesand also their environment are related toeach other like an organic whole. Evidencein symbiotic exchanges confirms that thesphere of life is like a net, with the differ-ent species representing the nodes of thatnet (network). If changes occur in the net-work as a whole, then the various nodes(species) change accordingly, to maintainthe harmony of the network of life. Thisviewpoint is completely ignored by manymodern evolutionists.

Cell Sentience ChallengesNeo-Darwinism

In his book, Evolution: A View from the21st Century,33 James A. Shapiro, Profes-sor in the Department of Biochemistryand Molecular Biology at the Universityof Chicago, provided ample exampleswhere molecular biology has recognizedcell cognition from cell sensing, informa-tion transfer, decision-making processes.In this book Shapiro, thoroughly dis-misses the traditional Neo-Darwinian evo-lution theory that is widely accepted bybiologists. In Darwinism, organisms areoften assumed as optimally designedmachines blindly engineered by natural

selection. However, based on cell cogni-tion, Shapiro challenges that view:

“Given the exemplary status of biologi-cal evolution, we can anticipate that a par-adigm shift in our understanding of thatsubject will have repercussions far outsidethe life sciences. A shift from thinkingabout gradual selection of localized ran-dom changes to sudden genome restruc-turing by sensory network-influenced cellsystems is a major conceptual change. Itreplaces the “invisible hands” of geologicaltime and natural selection with cognitivenetworks and cellular functions for self-modification. The emphasis is systemicrather than atomistic and information-based rather than stochastic.” (Page 145in).33

In recent time Neo-Darwinian evolu-tion theory is facing several challengesfrom various corners34,35 and hence, it isthe right time to find the proper alterna-tive explanation for biological evolution,based on cognitive principles.

What Algorithms Cannot Do

Even though 21st century biology hasestablished that from humans to the small-est cells (bacteria without brain organ), allliving organisms are conscious entities,several enthusiastic propositions in thefield of Artificial Intelligence (AI) claimthat by simulating the neuronal networkin the brain, we can produce consciousmachines. Often referred to as the Turingtest, an imitation game proposed by AlanTuring in 1950, is taken as the litmus testof machine intelligence in Strong AI. Inthis test, an interrogator asks questions toa human being and a machine, and if theinterrogator fails to distinguish betweenhuman and machine, then the machine isdeclared as intelligent.36 Searle used theChinese Room argument to establish thatthe Turing test is not the proper means toassess machine intelligence.37 In a Chineseroom, a man who does not understandChinese language can translate the incom-ing and outgoing messages in Chinese bysimply executing pattern replacements fol-lowing the rules. Chinese observers out-side the room may feel that whatever is inthe room passes the Turing test by com-municating in Chinese, but in reality the

man in the room has no real understand-ing about the meaning of that conversa-tion. In this way Searle explained that amachine may pass the Turing test but thisdoes not guarantee that it has developedthinking, understanding or the ability tograsp meaning. On the other hand, certainliving organisms have the ability to graspmeaning and such ability cannot be pro-duced in machines by any computerprogram.

With the ample empirical evidence andemphasis of the halting problem (is therea program which determines whether anygiven algorithm halts for a given input?),Sir Roger Penrose (a mathematician andphysicist at Oxford University) has alsoexplained the non-algorithmic nature ofmind, in his book The Emperor’ s NewMind.38 In his book, he continually high-lights that mental processes are intrinsi-cally more potent than computationalprocesses. Penrose asks “Can an algorithmdiscover theorems like Turing’s andG€odel’s?” Our minds may come up withsolutions to different questions for whichthere is no general algorithm. Therefore,we must know what algorithms cannot do.

Consciousness BeyondComputational Modeling

The “identity theory” explains that thestates and processes of the mind are alikestates and processes of the brain. Therefore,scientists and philosophers following theconcept of identity theory believe that thebrain secretes thought like the liver secretesbile.39 However, despite all their knowledgeon the brain scientists still do not knowhow the neural correlates coalesce to pro-duce subjective experiences. Like geneticists,neurologists also presume that there is a“neural code”40 that represents the mind ofthe organism and helps the brain managingsynaptic modulation over wide areas of thecortex. However, neurologists do not knowwhether coding is performed by individualneurons or by nervous system.41 Theybelieve that the complex brain function is assimple as the operation of a man-mademachine – robot – and therefore they hopethat in the future, they will be able to con-trol living organisms just like robots.42 Inthe brain, coding occurs in context and

e1085138-4 Volume 8 Issue 5Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

hence, the meaning aspect should be con-sidered strictly in the context of the subject’sbehavior. An individual living entity selectsaccording to its behavior only those aspectsof neural firing that make sense for itsbehavior. Different qualitative and quanti-tative stimulus attributes of sentient livingorganisms are represented by different neu-ral codes – and therefore, unlimitedly,many neural codes are necessary. Apartfrom the behavior of organism whose brainis under study, interpretations of neuralaction are also very much influenced by thebrain states of the neuroscientists. Egger-mont explains this difficulty:

“The information encoded in a train ofneural action potentials is interpreted byhigher order neurons and it is also inter-preted by the neuroscientist who designedand performed the experiments. Thereneed not be any correspondence betweenthese two interpretations. The interpreta-tion by the neuroscientist, however, maybe influenced by the ruling paradigm inthe particular field of research”.43

Therefore, it is not clear whether anyneural code exists in reality, or whether itis only in the minds of neurologists. AsErlich stated:

“Extensive investigation of the brain’ssynaptic connectivity, the presumed mate-rial basis of cognition, has failed to explainhow the brain thinks. Further, the neuralcode that purportedly allows the brain tocoordinate synaptic modulation over wideareas of cortex has yet to be found andmay not exist.”44

Code, by its meaning, is a predeter-mined representation of information thatis independent of the sender, receiver, andmechanisms of transmission.45 Influencedby the concept of neural coding anddecoding, neurologists think the brain asan information processing system. Tononihas tried to explain consciousness with atheoretical framework, the “IntegratedInformation Theory of Consciousness(IITC).”46 Tononi thought that thehuman brain integrates information, andthat is why it produces conscious behav-ior. The foundation of Tononi’s IITC isbased on 2 thought experiments: (1) thegeneration of information and (2) theintegration with previous memories(integrated information). The main pointthat Tononi emphasized in his first

thought experiment is that the explana-tions of experience necessitate a situationwhere they distinguish between severalpossible choices; in other words, theymust generate information. In his secondthought experiment, Tononi explains thatinformation alone is not enough for con-scious experience. It is possible to increasethe capacity of artificial smell detectors,where they can distinguish between smellsmuch more than humans (>10,000).However, the mere producing of moreinformation than that of a human nosecannot provide the artificial smell detec-tors the ability to experience the smell theway humans do. Tononi explained thatthe major difference between artificialdetector and human experience is that inthe case of the artificial detector, eacharoma is detected in seclusion of everyother aroma. Even if the entries of otheraromas (except the one detected) aredeleted from the database of the machine,we will find exactly the same response bythe artificial detector. The human nosehas different neurons which are specifi-cally equipped to sense particular smells.It may be possible that by selective damageof certain olfactory receptors an individualmay lose the ability to smell a particulararoma. In the case of human subjects,even though the process of detection of aparticular aroma is not itself integrated,the experience of smell is thoroughly inte-grated concerning the type of informationit records in response. When someonesmells a particular aroma, the effect that ithas on a subject’s brain is integrated acrossmany aspects of his/her memory and it isimpossible for a neurosurgeon to elimi-nate the memory of that experience with-out affecting anything else. Thereductionistic view of consciousness findsits limits here, because the changes in thememory caused by the subject’s experienceare not localized on any one part of his/herbrain. Computation is reversible but cog-nition is not,47 and that is why Maguireet al.48 stated.

“[A] form of magic is going on in thebrain, which is beyond computationalmodeling.”

Conscious behavior is an outcome ofintegrated information in the mind, andthose conscious responses cannot bedecomposed or disintegrated into a set of

causally independent parts. The failure tocreate machines that can produce inte-grated information is the reason why sci-entists in this field believe that machinescan never develop the ability to have sub-jective experience. Consciousness is a fun-damental property of animated objects –‘living organisms’ – which distinguishesthem from inanimate objects – ‘matter’.

Self-Organization: Without a Self!

To establish the difference betweenmachine and organism, Neil D Theise hasmentioned in his article in Nature:

“The dominant metaphor for biologi-cal structures—biomolecules, cells, tis-sues or bodies—has long been that of themachine. Researchers engage in biological‘engineering’, refer to ‘molecular motors’and often describe cells as tissue ‘buildingblocks’. However, biological entities at alllevels of scale are not machines. They arenot described by classical, Newtonianmechanics. Their behaviors are not deter-ministic, but stochastic. They are self-organizing, complex, dynamic systems.As such they are creative, adaptive andalive. Success in modeling such biologicalsystems, as demonstrated by Takebeet al., depends on letting them do whatthey do best. Perhaps a more accurateword to describe the generation of suchmodels is ‘cultivation’ rather thanbioengineering.”49

This is a good attempt to describe thedifference between biological systems andmachines, but we must realize that theconcept of self-organization was firstdeveloped in chemistry and physics andits direct application to a living system ishighly doubtful. In 1977, Ilya Prigoginereceived the Nobel Prize in Chemistry andhe claimed that systems significantly outof equilibrium – “dissipative structures” –tend to spontaneously organize them-selves. Prigogine cited the vortex (say atornado in thunderstorm) as an exampleof self-organization.50 When a stable massof dry and cold air travels over a stablemass of humid and warm air, a severethunderstorm or tornado can develop.The thunderstorm or tornado has a local-ized higher degree of organization than ispresent in either of the air masses alone.

www.tandfonline.com e1085138-5Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

Following such analogies and examples ofself ordering molecules during an influx ofenergy, a few biologists have tried toexplain the origin of highly complex mac-romolecules essential for living systems.However, such analogies have negligiblebearing toward addressing the question oflife, as Prigogine stated: “There is still agap between the most complex structureswe can produce in nonequilibrium situa-tions in chemistry and the complexity wefind in biology.”51 Such simple analysiscan never address the complexity of even asimple living cell. Prigogine confirms thesame:

“The problem of biological orderinvolves the transition from the molecularactivity to the supermolecular order of thecell. This problem is far from beingsolved.”52

Even primitive cellular life requires acertain minimum number of systems, like(1) the means to transmit heredity (RNA,DNA, or something similar), (2) a mecha-nism to obtain energy to generate work(metabolic system), (3) an enclosure tohold and protect these components fromthe environment (cell membrane), andfinally, (4) a unique principle to connectall of these components together (sen-tience). Can self-organization theoryaddress all these requirements? The mainproblem is that a physical analysis canonly elucidate the structure and functionof a system as characterized from an exter-nal viewpoint. However, living organismsare conscious systems and their subjectiveexperiences are within. Therefore, eventhough it is named as self-organization,this reductionistic concept has no ‘self’ atall. For the last 9 years under the guidanceof our Siksha Gurudev Sripad BhaktiMadhava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. (ServingDirector, Bhakti Vedanta Institute: www.bviscs.org and Founder of Sri ChaitanyaSaraswat Institute: www.scsiscs.org), weare trying to spread the Vedantic conceptof Life among the scientists via universityoutreach, seminars, conferences, publica-tions and online discussions. One of hisstatements is very much relevant in thepresent context of self-organization:

“From the reader’s perspective, a bookis composed of alphabetical letters; butthe book itself did not originate fromthese letters. Ultimately it is from the ideas

of the author that the letters of the bookcome to be. In the same way, the mole-cules of a biological organism are theresult, not the origin of life. This is thedifference between the order in which wecome to know things (ordo cognoscendi)and the order in which something comesto be (ordo essendi).”

Differences Between Organismsand Artifacts: Living Organisms

are Beyond Design

German philosopher Immanuel Kantexplained the concept of “natural tele-ology” or “natural purpose” or “naturalend” (Naturzweck).53 To distinguish theliving organisms from artifacts, Kantexplained that for both the cases, 2 differ-ent necessary conditions are satisfied forends. The condition applicable for ends isthat “the parts. [be] possible only throughtheir relation to the whole” or each partexists “for the sake of the others and of thewhole.”53 In the designer’s concept ofthe whole, this condition is satisfied in thecase of artifacts by a linear causality.The legs and the seat of a chair or balancewheel, hairspring, gear system and so onin a watch, can exist only in virtue ofdesigner’s concept of the whole. In otherwords, the legs of the chair or the hair-spring of the watch exist only in order thatthe chair or watch as a whole exist. In thecase of the living organisms (Naturzweck)this condition is satisfied in the form of acircular causality of the organic whole:“the parts [must] combine themselves intothe unity of a whole by being reciprocallythe cause and effect of one another’sform.”53 External forces are the unifyingprinciple in an artifact, but, in the case ofa living organism, the unifying principle issentience. Even though in both artifactsand living organisms, the ends are deter-mined by purpose (a cognitive act), thedifference is that in the case of artifacts,the purpose (designer) is outside the sys-tem (external teleology), and in the case ofa living organism, the purpose is within(internal teleology). Following a linearlogic in the case of artifacts, parts are pro-duced and combined into a whole by thedesigner. On the other hand, following acircular logic, the body of the living

organism appears from another livingorganism by a developmental process (celldivision) and not by the linear accumula-tion of parts – design.

Even though the attempt toward mech-anization of nature served as an importantdriving force behind the scientific revolu-tion, it also created an image of a clock-work universe set in motion by anintelligent first cause. Such machine anal-ogy is also applied to living organisms.However, the view that a supernaturalbeing, God,54 is external to living organ-isms and that He imposes form on matterfrom the outside (intelligent design) isalso reductionistic, and shows a logical fal-lacy. The logic of extrinsically purposivesystems (machines) cannot be applied tointrinsically purposive systems (livingorganisms). The Vedantic view offers ascientific alternative: “‘Organic Wholes’produces ‘organic wholes’ and an ‘organicwhole’ cannot arise from parts that haveto be mechanically assembled. The processof externally assembling parts can onlyproduce inorganic, mechanical machinesor chemical processes, not living organ-isms.”5 Empirical evidence shows thatevery living cell comes from a living celland there is no single evidence that showsa case where a living cell appears from theexternal assembly/accumulation of biomo-lecules. The Vedantic alternative is that animmanent subjective process within a sin-gle cell zygote produces varieties of cellsthat are necessary for different functionsin the body of a particular species.Vedanta advocates that different formsoriginate from the adi-purus

˙a or primeval

personal Absolute, and in the reflectedmaterial sphere, the various species of lifeare subject to a developing principle ofevolution of consciousness.

Life (Naturzweck) also has a fundamen-tal “formative force” (bildende Kraft) thatis responsible for an organism’s self-caus-ing character. It is impossible for adesigner to produce an artifact with the 2fundamental characters (Naturzweck andbildende Kraft) that life has. As Kantexplained, “one wheel in the watch doesnot produce another, and still less doesone watch produce other watches.”55 In aliving organism, the complex biomole-cules are not just there for the sake of eachother, but they also produce each other,

e1085138-6 Volume 8 Issue 5Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

maintain each other, and are dedicatingunits of an organic whole. Therefore,unlike machines, the generation, proper-ties, and functions of the parts of anorganism cannot be understood indepen-dently from the organism as a whole. Theempirical evidence in frontier biology alsoconfirms Immanuel Kant’s statement:“there will never be a Newton of the bladeof grass, because human science will neverbe able to explain how a living being canoriginate from inanimate matter.”56 Forconfirmation, in his book This is Biology,20th century’s leading evolutionary biolo-gist Ernst Mayr wrote:

“It is a little difficult to understand whythe machine concept of organism couldhave had such long lasting popularity.After all, no machine has ever built itself,replicated itself, programmed itself, orbeen able to procure its own energy. Thesimilarity between an organism and amachine is exceedingly superficial.”57

Abiogenesis and the theory of evolu-tion explain that the first life came fromthe accumulation of inert matter and thatbiodiversity is a result of random muta-tion and natural selection. Evolutionarytheory and the principles in biology areapplied directly to behavior, and theyavoid psychological or cognitive level anal-ysis. Both abiogenesis and evolution the-ory are outcomes of mechanistic orreductionistic thinking and that is whythey cannot explain how organisms havecognitive features like thinking, feelingand willing. These concepts also do notexplain how matter developed the 2 fun-damental characteristics that life has(Naturzweck and bildende Kraft). There-fore, both the origin and evolution of lifemust be rewritten on the basis ofsentience.

A Brief Introduction to VedanticView on Body, Consciousness

and Soul

In biology, the predominant ontologi-cal view of the organism is that of a com-plex machine programmed by its geneticsoftware and decomposable into its com-ponent mechanisms. However, throughher work on transposons, Nobel laureateBarbara McClintock has established that

genes are not the foundational concept oflife.58 Crick predicted that if a single caseof unknown transfers of the central dogmais occurring in nature, then it would shakethe foundations of biology.59 Twenty firstcentury biology witnessed that the founda-tion of biology has been shaken hard,which put the cell and the organism backto the center stage. There are no genomicor other molecular units for life.60 Thegenetic substance itself is a dynamic struc-ture and functions as a co-participatingmember in an organic whole. In contrastto Darwinism, 21st century biologyaccepts that life is a totality of organism,environment and nature.61 It is a web oflife and no organism can be considered inisolation. Continually mounting evidencethoroughly challenges the common con-sensus that genes determine living func-tion.62 Therefore, life must be consideredfrom a different perspective in a call for anew biology which, to us, will be assigninga fundamental role to consciousness inorder to account for its subject-objectunity.63 Biology must include higher con-cepts like intelligence, mind, desire andfreewill for studying what really deter-mines the organism and biodiversity.

The central tenet of Vedanta (alsoknown as Vedanta-sutra) is that everythingis dependent upon an originalsentient/conscious foundation or self-knowing absolute truth. The first apho-rism of Vedanta-sutra states that under theguidance of a spiritually realized being, wemust inquire into our true nature as spirit(athato brahma jij~nasa). The second apho-rism of Vedanta-sutra provides the initialindication of how to begin this inquiry(janmady asya yatah). Janma means birth,asya refers to everything (entire cosmoswhich includes both matter and life) andyatah means ‘from whom’. Therefore, tobegin the inquiry into our true nature, wemust first inquire into the original sourceof everything. �Srımad-Bhagavatam is con-sidered as a natural supplementary com-mentary on the Vedanta-sutra. The firstverse of �Srımad-Bhagavatam elaboratedthe commentary of the second aphorismof Vedanta-sutra (janmady yato �nvayaditarata�s carthesv abhij~nah svarat).“Janmady asya yatah” – the origin ofeverything is “abhij~nah svarat” – the uni-tary Supreme Cognizant Being. This

Vedantic explanation that unitarySupreme Cognizant Being is the source ofeverything is founded on 2 scientificallyverifiable axiomatic facts: (1) Life comesfrom Life, and (2) Matter comes fromLife. Consciousness arises from conscious-ness, or life comes from life. Where thereis life there is consciousness. Conscious-ness does not originate from that which isunconscious or impersonal, and life is nota product of insentient matter. The con-ception that life comes from life (biogene-sis) is the only scientific idea that has everbeen verified by experiment and observa-tion. The second axiomatic fact ‘Mattercomes from Life’ is apparently observablein nature. Every species produces theirown chemicals necessary within their bod-ies. ‘Life comes from Life’, and ‘Mattercomes from Life’ are 2 scientificallyobservable deductions from Vedanta. Onthe other hand, materialism (life originatesfrom matter) is an unverified ideologicalpresupposition that has no scientific orobservation-based evidence to support it.

�Srımad Bhagavad-gıta (BG) is one ofthe most important books in Indian phi-losophy and religion. BG in a capsuleform describes the entire Vedantic philos-ophy right from the understanding of thesoul (atman) to the understanding of theultimate purpose of life. In BG30,31 13.34it is written: “yatha praka�sayaty ekahkrtsna �m lokam ima �m ravih ksetra �m ksetrıtatha krtsna �m praka�sayati bharata – O sonof Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates allthis universe, so does the living entity, onewithin the body, illuminate the entirebody by consciousness.” Therefore,according to BG, consciousness is theinferential proof or symptom of existenceof the soul (atman) or the living entity.Consciousness is absolutely necessary forthe living body to be what it is and tofunction as it does. We can all experienceconsciousness and according to BG thesoul (atman) is the seat or the origin ofconsciousness. According to Vedanta,there are 2 types of consciousness (finiteand infinite consciousness) that co-exist inthe body of a living organism. We can wit-ness voluntary functions (the action thatare apparently under the control of ourmind) and involuntary functions in theliving organisms. The things that weappear to control are due to our

www.tandfonline.com e1085138-7Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

consciousness coming from our soul(atman) and that which are not in ourcontrol (involuntary functions: complexcellular functions, heart beats, autono-mous signals, and so on) are controlled byhigher consciousness coming from Para-matma (super soul). Hence, Paramatma(source of infinite consciousness) is alsoknown as the ground or sustainer of theatman (finite consciousness).

There are terms in science that we can-not perceive directly by our senses. Wecannot taste, smell, touch, see and hearentities like force, energy, electron, quarks,and so on. Scientists explain to us manysuch terms using inference and we acceptthem as scientific proof. When an applefalls down from a tree, we infer that thereis a gravitational force that pulledthe apple down. We never ask for a directobservation of the gravitational force itself.Similarly, although scientists cannot sen-sually perceive the soul (atman), still theycan infer its existence just from the pres-ence of consciousness in all biological sys-tems. As the presence of the sun can beinferred from the sunlight, similarly exis-tence of the soul (atman) can also beunderstood from the presence of the dif-ferent varieties of consciousness in variousliving organisms. Doctors can keeppatients survive on ventilators and eventhey can replace the heart with an artificialheart running with a battery. Sometimes,it is possible to keep an organism func-tioning by electrical equipment outsidethe body, but the organism is unconscious– showing no EEG activity, in a vegetativestate. Remove the equipment and theorganism cannot maintain even that func-tion. Then, what is supplying the organ-ism’s energy for functioning when themachines are disconnected and it has tofunction independently? Vedantic scrip-tures explain it is the soul (atman) thatdoes all the work of the machines in main-taining the organism’s functioning, plussupplying the order and sentient aware-ness within the body. We can supply theenergy by some machines to maintain thebody but we cannot make a body con-scious with those machines.

According to Vedanta, the soul(atman) possesses the qualities of sat, citand ananda. All life exhibits these samequalities. Every living organism wants to

maintain its life forever (sat) and is willingto engage in the struggle for existence untilit is forced by the laws of material natureto succumb to physical death of the body.The fact that life goes on generation aftergeneration for thousands or millions ofyears is not something we would expect inchemical or physical material processes. Itis sentient or conscious (cit) and seeksknowledge in the human form. And alllife seeks fulfillment (ananda) throughnutrition, and various other forms accord-ing to the spiritual development of thevarious qualities of the soul (atman)within the different bodies. All these dif-ferent symptoms give evidence for theexistence of the spiritual soul (atman), forthey are certainly not the qualities of mat-ter. Matter, as it is known in modern sci-ence in terms of physical and chemicalproperties, does not have sentience or con-sciousness. Even though the same chemi-cals are present in the dead body as in theliving one, we do not find life or sentientquality in a dead body or a dead cell. Eventhough the same biochemicals are presentin both the cases, the complex biochemicalreactions that occur in a living cell do nottake place in a dead cell. To provide avalid explanation to these observations,the soul (atman) hypothesis certainlyoffers a good possibility, because accord-ing to BG, the soul (atman) does have theproperty of consciousness. Modern sciencehas not yet approached that area of knowl-edge and only focused its studies on insen-tient matter. Due to a gross negligence tothe area of sentient science, modern sci-ence finds itself at an impasse when it triesto understand biology, which deals withmind or consciousness.

Vedanta holds that different forms(species) are original archetypes thataccommodate different varieties of con-sciousness through which the transmigra-tion of the soul (atman) takes place on thebasis of the evolution of consciousness.The body is a biological illusion of theconsciousness of the soul (atman) andfrom an amoeba to a human being, all thedifferent varieties of forms are representa-tions of different stages of conditionedconsciousness. Following an endless cycleof birth and death (‘transmigration of thesoul’ or Metempsychosis in Greek), the soul(atman) keeps on wandering in different

grades of conditioned states of conscious-ness (subjective evolution of conscious-ness) by obtaining a body suitable to thatconsciousness until it attains the pureconsciousness.

Unless a designer or an external agentinterferes, a machine always consists of thesame material stuff. Unlike a machine, aliving organism displays a transitionalmaterial identity. The constituent materi-als of the body of the living organism areunder constant change, yet the organiza-tion of the whole and its identity remain.The body of a living organism is in a stateof continuous flux in which there is crea-tion, maintenance (replacement) anddestruction of its constituent material stuffby the processes of anabolism, metabolismand catabolism. Dr. Jonas Fris�en, a stemcell biologist at the Karolinska Institute inStockholm used carbon dating to estimatethe age of human cells.64 He used Carbondating method on tissues instead of indi-vidual cells, because a single cell does nothave enough 14C to signal its age. Scien-tists believe that the DNA is stable after acell has gone through its last cell division.Therefore, they use 14C level on the DNAas a date mark for when a cell was born.65

In his experiments, Jonas Fris�en used theassumption that most molecules in a cellare continually being changed but theDNA is not. Dr. Fris�en’s experimentaldata suggested that our body is many yearsyounger than our age – for instance, amiddle aged person’s body may be just 7-10 years old or less.66 As the body is underconstant replenishment, Vedanta explainsthat bodily identity of self is illusory.Verse 2.13 of BG explains that there issoul within the body, which is unaffectedby the bodily changes:dehino ’ smin yatha dehekaumara �m yauvana �m jaratatha dehantara-praptirdhıras tatra na muhyati

Translation: As the embodied soul con-tinuously passes, in this body, from boy-hood to youth to old age, the soulsimilarly passes into another body atdeath. A self-realized soul is not bewil-dered by such a change.

Our body was in the state of a singlecell zygote when it first came into exis-tence and by miraculous embryologicaldevelopment it has acquired a child body.

e1085138-8 Volume 8 Issue 5Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

By several changes, it has acquired its pres-ent state and it will further change toacquire its future state. Therefore, ourbody is in a constant state of flux, like ariver. The Vedantic view of the principleof reincarnation (metempsychosis) can befound in its nascent form in the changingof our body, from the child body, to theyouth body, to the old body. We can sci-entifically observe that our body is alreadychanging several times in our lifetimeitself, and in a similar manner at the timeof death, the eternal soul (atman) will goto another body under certain conditions.

According to Sa�nkhya philosophy,there are 2 types of bodies: (1) Sthula-deha: The gross body–the body that canbe sensed by hearing, smelling, tasting,seeing, and touching, and (2) Suks

˙ma-

deha: The subtle body (within the grossbody) – mind (manasa), intelligence (bud-dhi) and false ego (aha�nkara). In the grossbody, the senses are primary and if theyare removed, no world is apparent to us.Above the senses is the mind (manasa)and it is the supreme ruler of the senses. Ifwe are not mindful of the sense objects,then even though something is moving infront of our eyes we cannot see it. Themind basically deals with acceptance(sa�nkalpa) and rejection (vikalpaa)–thefaculty of understanding, or holdingthoughts in their separation/distinction aseither/or. And, above the mind is the tele-ological reason or intelligence (buddhi),which is the inferential faculty determin-ing if/then. The mind can determinesomething, but it is the intelligence thathelps an individual to come to a decisionto accept something or not. The false ego(aha�nkara) is the identification of the selfwith the body and the bodily identities(nation, cast, color, creed and so on). Themind, intelligence, ego are dependent onthe soul (atman). The soul (atman) con-sciously experiences and interacts with thegross matter through a subtle body (mind,intelligence and false ego).

BG states that at the time of death, thesoul (atman) leaves the gross body, but itdoes not leave the subtle body. The trans-migration of the soul (atman) is describedin BG 8.6: yam yam vapi smaran bhavamtyajaty ante kalevaram tam tam evaitikaunteya sada tad-bhava-bhavitah

˙– “The

soul (atman) obtains a body in next life

based on the consciousness in which it leftthe previous body.”

Considering a machine analogy of theliving organism, abiogenesis and evolutiontheory in biology do not include thesesubtle elements when it studies livingorganisms. It excludes mind, intelligenceand false ego. Obviously, consciousness isuntouched in those theories. Vedantic lit-erature explains that wherever life is pres-ent, the soul (atman) is there within andfollowing the ‘laws of karma’ the soul(atman) in human body may obtain bod-ies of nonhuman species and vice versa.By advancement, the soul (atman) canobtain the human form, and by degrada-tion it can also go back to other forms oflife. The soul (atman) is endowed withfreewill and by misutilizing freewill, a soul(atman) may do many misdeeds. Theacquired reactions from those misdeedsare known as karmic reactions. ‘Laws ofkarma’ check the freewill of the soul(atman) by providing new bodies andthrowing into different suffering condi-tions. This ancient theory of evolution isbased on the subjective evolution of con-sciousness67 and the Darwinian objectiveevolution theory of bodies is a pervertedrepresentation of this ancient wisdom. InDarwinism, evolution means transforma-tion of bodies, and in Vedantic view evo-lution means transformation ofconsciousness. Twenty first century biol-ogy also teaches us that we should notinflict our ideas on nature; let naturereveal herself to us. Life and its evolutioncannot be understood by imposing sim-plistic Darwinian mechanistic reduction-ism on sentient biological systems.Evidence is forcing biologists to gobeyond physics and chemistry to properlycomprehend the science of consciousness.

Conclusions

1. In a living cell proteins can distinc-tively catalyze a chemical reaction oridentify an antigen not only becausetheir amino acids are arranged in aparticular manner, but also becausetheir 3-dimensional structure andfunction are controlled by sentientliving cell. Cell functioning cannot beexplained by reducing it to any single

molecule like, DNA, RNA or Pro-tein. The reductionistic view in biol-ogy finds its limits and biologyshould shift its lens from the parts tothe whole.

2. Science has witnessed that biology hasevolved from DNA-centrism (centraldogma) to cell-centrism, where cellsoperate in a sentient manner which afew biologists are trying to comparewith information processing, whileon the other hand, some try to see itas computational result. However,none of these explanations includethe sensory feature of how cells act.All these developments give theimpression that cells possess a mindwhich is the essential character ofcognition. In contrast to geneticdeterminism, scientific evidence isforcing the scientists, philosophersand other scholars to reconsider theexplanations of cognition as tradi-tionally associated with life. In hisbook, Evolution: A View from the 21stCentury, James A. Shapiro has stated:“The selected cases just described areexamples where molecular biology hasidentified specific components of cellsensing, information transfer, and deci-sion-making processes. In other words,we have numerous precise moleculardescriptions of cell cognition, whichrange all the way from bacterial nutri-tion to mammalian cell biology anddevelopment. The cognitive, infor-matic view of how living cells operateand utilize their genomes is radicallydifferent from the genetic determinismperspective articulated most succinctly,in the last century, by Francis Crick’sfamous “Central Dogma of MolecularBiology”.(Page 24 in33)

3. Consciousness is ubiquitous in all liv-ing organisms, starting from bacteriato human beings.

4. The individual cells in the multicellu-lar organisms are also individuallycognitive entities.

5. The scientific confirmation of theexistence of consciousness in uni-cellular organisms and plants cer-tainly establishes that the brain isnot the source of consciousness.Several decades back, research inmedical science has also proven

www.tandfonline.com e1085138-9Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

that the brain is not the source ofconsciousness. In 1970, RobertWhite and his team successfullytransferred the head of a rhesusmonkey to the headless body ofanother monkey. The monkey sur-vived for 8 days.68 Researchers arealso attempting to perform thesame scenario with humanbeings.69 It is reported that if ahuman head has been detachedunder controlled conditions, itmust be reconnected to the circula-tory flow of other person’s body(which is conscious or living)within one hour.70 Therefore,brain-based analysis for understand-ing consciousness (neuronal analy-sis) does not have very brightprospects.

6. Using the brain analogy, some scien-tists consider the cell nucleus (becauseDNA and genes are within the cellnucleus) as an equivalent to the brainof a cell. Cells can sustain an enucle-ation operation (the operation inwhich a cell’s nucleus is removed). Infact, cells are found to be more robusttoward brain removal than multicel-lular organisms. It has been reportedthat enucleated cells continue to sur-vive and display a regulated controlof their biological processes for up to3 months.71,72 Therefore, for bothsingle-cell and also multicellularorganisms, the brain is not the sourceof consciousness.

7. The information approach andself-organization principles are notsufficient to explain life and itsorigin.

8. Proposals like “artificial life,”“artificial intelligence,” “sentientmachines” and so on are only fairy-tales because no designer can producean artifact with the properties likeinternal teleology (Naturzweck) andformative force (bildende Kraft). Inother words, a machine will never dothings for its own internal purposeand it cannot build itself.

9. The material origin of life and objec-tive evolution are only misconcep-tions that biologists must overcome.Biologists should instead find theproper tools to explain the origin and

evolution of life from the realm ofsentience.

10. Our attitude is shaped by the way oureducation has conditioned us to thinkabout the world. To teach that Manis simply an enclosed membrane ofchemicals affects how people thinkabout themselves as spiritual beings,and thus it influences the way theythink about such concerns as abor-tion, euthanasia, bioethics in researchand medicine, cloning, genetic modi-fication of food, animal rights, and soon. The Vedantic scholars, Aristotle,Kant (using the argument of teleol-ogy) and Hegel have all claimed thatbiological systems (organisms) aredistinct from inanimate objects(mechanical and chemical systems).Purpose and meaning are inseparableaspects of life, similarly as conscious-ness. We cannot expect those in deadmolecules. We do not give any moraland ethical importance to an accumu-lation of dead molecules, but such aconsideration is a must for the lifeprinciple. Hence, abiogenesis is aninsult to the life force. To understandlife and its origin, one must also givea proper attention toward the ancientEastern Vedantic philosophical con-cept of atman, Aristotle’s concept ofSoul, and Hegel’s explanation of theConcept.

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

No potential conflicts of interest weredisclosed.

Acknowledgments

The author’s Diksha Gurudev SrilaBhaktisvarupa Damodara Maharaja(Dr. T.D. Singh, Founding Director –Bhaktivedanta Institute) inspired him towork on the most fundamental topics inscience such as ‘Origin of Matter andLife’, ‘Origin of Universe’, and‘Consciousness’. The author sincerelyacknowledges the blessings and guidanceof his Siksha Gurudev Sripad Bhakti Mad-hava Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. toward devel-oping the concepts to prepare this paper.He is also thankful for valuable inputs ofSripad Bhakti Vijnana Muni Maharaja,Ph.D. (President, Sri Chaitanya Saraswat

Institute) and Samuel Buchoul during thepreparation of this paper. Sincere thanksalso to the Editor-in-Chief of the Journaland the reviewers for their valuable com-ments and suggestions toward theimprovement of the presentation of thispaper.

Funding

This work is partially supported by:Prof. Kanchan Chowdhury, Head, Cryo-genic Engineering Center, Indian Instituteof Technology, Kharagpur, India; Dr.Ashok K. Mishra, Assistant Professor,Glenn Department of Civil Engineering,Clemson University, USA; Bharath Cher-ukuri, Sri Ramachandra Medical Collegeand Research Institute, Chennai, India;Yasheswari Didi, Leiden, Netherlands;Pradyumna Prabhu, Mumbai, India; San-deep Krishna Prabhu & Damayanti Didi,Hyderabad, India.

References

1. Levinson BW. States of awareness during anaesthesia.British J Anaesthesia 1965; 37:544-6; http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/37.7.544

2. Maturana HR. Biology of cognition. In Autopoeisisand cognition (eds Maturana HR, Varela FJ), Dor-drecht, The Netherlands: Reidel, 1970; 1-58

3. Needhma J. The skeptical biologist. London: Chatto &Windus, 1929; page 82

4. Szent-Gy€orgyi A. What is life? In the Physical basis oflife. Del Mar, CA: CRM Books, 1972; page 5

5. Prabhupada ACBS. �Srı I�sopanisad. Bhaktivedanta BookTrust, 1969

6. Tan SY, Brown J. Rudolph Virchow (1821–1902):Pope of pathology. Singapore Med J 2006; 47:567-78;PMID:16810425

7. Driesch H. Analytische Theorie de organischenEntwicklung. W Engelmann, Leipzig 1894

8. Williamson PG. Morphological stasis and developmen-tal constraint: real problems for neo-Darwinism. Nature1981; 294:214; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/294214a0

9. Fijalkowska IJ, Schaaper RM, Jonczyk P. DNA replica-tion fidelity in Escherichia coli: a multi-DNA polymer-ase affair. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2012; 36(6):1105-21;PMID:22404288; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2012.00338.x

10. Wagner GP, Vincent JL. Evolutionary novelties. Cur-rent Biol 2010; 20:R48-52; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.11.010

11. Proctor HS, Carder G, Cornish AR. Searching for ani-mal sentience: A systematic review of the scientific liter-ature. Animals 2013; 2:882-906; http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani3030882

12. Francione G. Introduction to animal rights: Your childor the dog? Temple University Press, 2000

13. The First Annual Francis Crick Memorial Conference:http://fcmconference.org

14. Trewavas AJ, Balu�ska F. The ubiquity of consciousness:The ubiquity of consciousness, cognition and intelli-gence in life. EMBO Rep 2011; 12:1221-5;PMID:22094270; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.218

15. Ben-Jacob E, Shapira Y, Tauber AI. Seeking the foun-dations of cognition in bacteria: from Schr€odinger’snegative entropy to latent information. Physica A 2006;

e1085138-10 Volume 8 Issue 5Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6

359:495-524; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2005.05.096

16. Balu�ska F, Mancuso S. Deep evolutionary origins ofneurobiology. Communicative Integrative Biol 2009; 2(1):60-5; http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/cib.2.1.7620

17. Shapiro JA. Bacteria are small but not stupid: cognition,natural genetic engineering and socio-bacteriology.Stud Hist Phil Biol Biomed Sci 2007; 38:807-19;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2007.09.010

18. Hu JH, Yang N, Ma YH, Jiang J, Zhang JF, Fei J, GuoLH. Identification of glutamate receptors and transport-ers in mouse and human sperm. J Andr 2004; 25:140-6

19. Bray C, Son JH, Kumar P, Meizel S. Mice deficient inCHRNA7, a subunit of the nicotinic acetylcholinereceptor, produce sperm with impaired motility. BiolRepr 2005; 73:807-14; http://dx.doi.org/10.1095/biolreprod.105.042184

20. Trewavas A. Response to Alpi et al.: Plant neurobiology– all metaphors have value. Trends Plant Sci 2007;12:231-3; PMID:17499006; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2007.04.006

21. Fromm J, Lautner S. Electrical signals and their physio-logical significance in plants. Plant Cell Environ 2007;30:249-57; PMID:17263772; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01614.x

22. Balu�ska F, Mancuso S, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. Rootapices as plant command centres: The unique brain-likestatus of the root apex transition zone. Biologia 2004;59:9-14

23. Brandman O, Ferrell JE, Li R, Meyer, T. Interlinkedfast and slow positive feedback loops drive reliable celldecisions. Science 2005; 310:496-8; PMID:16239477;http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1113834

24. Hartwell LH. Twenty-five years of cell cycle genetics.Genetics 1991; 129:975-80; PMID:1783298

25. McAdams HH, Shapiro L. System-level design of bac-terial cell cycle control. FEBS Lett 2009; 583:3984-91;PMID:19766635; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2009.09.030

26. Bursch W. The autophagosomal-lysosomal compart-ment in programmed cell death. Cell Death Differ2001; 8:569-81; PMID:11536007; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4400852

27. Lane N. Marine microbiology: origins of death. Nature2008; 453:583-5; PMID:18509414; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/453583a

28. Langman RE. Cell-mediated immunity and the majorhistocompatibility complex. Rev Physiol BiochemPharmacol 1978; 81:1-37; PMID:417392; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0034090

29. Schr€odinger E. What is life? Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, 1944

30. Sridhar BR. �Srımad Bhagavad-gıta: The hidden treasureof the sweet Absolute. Sri Chaitanya Saraswat Math 2006

31. Prabhupada ACBS. Bhagavad-gıta as it is. Bhaktive-danta Book Trust, 1972

32. Bacterial bonanza: Microbes keep us alive. NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyIdD129862107 Accessed 07 July 2015

33. Shapiro JA. Evolution: A view from the 21st century.Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press, 2011

34. Raoult D, Koonin EV. Microbial genomics challengeDarwin. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2012; 2:127;

PMID:23091803; http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2012.00127

35. Kuhn JA. Dissecting Darwinism. Proc Bayl Univ MedCent 2012; 25:41-7; PMID:22275784

36. Turing AM. Computing machinery and intelligence.Mind 1950; LIX(236)

37. Searle JR. Minds, brains, and programs. The Behavioraland Brain Sciences 1980, 3:417-57; http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756

38. Penrose R. The emperor’s new mind. Oxford Univer-sity Press, 1989

39. Place UT. Is consciousness a brain process? Brit J Psy-chol 1956; 47:44-50; PMID:13304279; http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1956.tb00560.x

40. Bialek W, Rieke F, de Ruyter van Steveninck RR, War-land D. Reading a neural code. Science 1991;252:1854-7; PMID:2063199; http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.2063199

41. Barlow H. The neuron doctrine in perception. In TheCognitive Neurosciences, Ed Gazzaniga MS, MITPress, Cambridge, MA, 1995; 415-35

42. Delgado JMR. Physical control of the mind. Toward apsychocivilized society. Harper and Row, New York,1969

43. Eggermont JJ. Is there a neural code? Neuroscience Bio-behavioral Rev 1998; 22:355-70; PMID:9579325;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(97)00021-3

44. Erlich VM. Cognition without a neural code: How afolded cortex might think by harmonizing its own elec-tromagnetic fields. Einstein J Biol Medicine 2011; 27(1):34-47

45. Kreiman G. Neural coding: computational and bio-physical perspectives. Phys Life Rev 2004; 1:71-102;http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2004.06.001

46. Tononi G. Consciousness as integrated information: aprovisional manifesto. Biol Bull 2008; 215:216-42;PMID:19098144; http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/25470707

47. Bringsjord S, Zenzen M. Cognition is not computation:The argument from irreversibility. Synthese 1997;113:285-320; http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1005019131238

48. Maguire P, Moser P, Maguire R, Griffith V. Is con-sciousness computable? Quantifying integrated infor-mation using algorithmic information theory. In: BelloP, Guarini M, McShane M, Scassellati B (eds), Proc36th Ann Conf Cogn Sci Soc. Cognitive Science Soci-ety, Austin, TX, 2014

49. Theise ND. Assessing the potential of induced liverregeneration. Nat Med 2013; 19:1096-7;PMID:24013747; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm.3325

50. Progogine I. The end of certainity. The Free Press, NewYork, 1996; page 3

51. Progogine I. The end of certainity. The Free Press, NewYork, 1996; page 71

52. Prigogine I, Stengers I. Order out of chaos. New York,Bantam Books, 1984; page 175

53. Ginsborg H. The normativity of nature: Essays onKant’s critique of judgement. Oxford University Press,2015; page 318

54. Scott EC, Matzke NJ. Biological design in science class-rooms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2007; 104(Suppl

1):8669-76; PMID:17494747; http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701505104

55. Ginsborg H. The normativity of nature: Essays onKant’s critique of judgement. Oxford University Press,2015; page 319

56. Kant I. Kritik der Urteilskraft. 1790; http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/buch/3507/85

57. Mayr E. This is biology: The science of the living world.The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1997

58. McClintock B. The significance of responses of thegenome to challenge, Nobel lecture, Carnegie Institu-tion of Washington, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory,New York, USA, 8 December, 1983

59. Crick F. Central dogma of molecular biology. Nature1970; 227:561-3; PMID:4913914; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/227561a0

60. Shapiro JA. Genome informatics: The role of DNA incellular computations. Biological Theory 2006; 1(3):288-301; http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/biot.2006.1.3.288

61. Noble D. The music of life: Biology beyond thegenome. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006; page176

62. Ford BJ. Are Cells ingenious?. Microscope 2004; 52(3/4):135-44

63. Stern DS. Essays on Hegel’s philosophy of subjectivespirit, State University of New York Press, 2012; Page206

64. Spalding KL, Bhardwaj RD, Buchholz BA, Druid H,Fris�en J. Retrospective birth dating of cells in humans.Cell 2005; 122:133-43; PMID:16009139; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2005.04.028

65. Spalding KL, Arner E, Westermark PO, Bernard S,Buchholz BA, Bergmann O, Blomqvist L, Hoffstedt J,N€aslund E, Britton T, et al. Dynamics of fat cell turn-over in humans. Nature 2008; 453:783-7;PMID:18454136; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06902

66. Heinrichs A. Age discrimination. Nat Rev Mol CellBiol 2005; 6:672; http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrm1730

67. Sridhar BR. Subjective evolution of consciousness –The play of the sweet Absolute. Sri Chaitanya SaraswatMath 1989

68. White RJ, Wolin LR, Massopust LC, Jr, Taslitz N, Ver-dura J. Primate cephalic transplantation: neurogenicseparation, vascular association. Transplant Proc 1971;3:602-4; PMID:4999463

69. Canavero S. Heaven: The head anastomosis ventureProject outline for the first human head transplantationwith spinal linkage (GEMINI). Surgical Neurol Inter-national 2013; 4:S335-42; http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.113444

70. White RJ. Head Transplants. Scientific American 1999;10:24-6

71. H€ammerling J. Nucleo-cytoplasmic interactions in Ace-tabularia and other cells. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 1963;14:65-92; http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.14.060163.000433

72. Chapman CJ, Nugent NA, Schreiber RW. Nucleic acidsynthesis in the chloroplasts of Acetabularia mediterra-nea. Plant Physiol 1966; 41:589-92; PMID:5932403;http://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.41.4.589

www.tandfonline.com e1085138-11Communicative & Integrative Biology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

27.7

.66.

158]

at 1

1:48

25

Febr

uary

201

6