Biophotons and the Connection to Human Conciousness

#1
This is a somewhat old article, but I believe that it is worthy of some intelligent discussion. It has been discovered in 2017 that the human brain carries optical light receiving channels, otherwise known as biophotons. It is extremely odd that the human brain would be found to have such structures, as these are generally only seen in plants and other bioluminescent creatures. It is theorized that this optical light communication channels may be involved with some kind of quantum coherence effect that makes up the "ping" of conscious experience via the supporting structures of microtubules found in the axons of nervous tissue.

https://bigthink.com/robby-berman/t...n-the-brain-is-something-light-based-going-on
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/422069/the-puzzling-role-of-biophotons-in-the-brain/

Interestingly, NDErs describe the source as a being of light. Is it possible that this intelligent light is what makes up the conscious experience that we all have? It is a strange idea to think of light as being intelligent, but then if light makes up everything that we can see via the cornea of the eye, it does beg the question.
 
#4
Thank you for linking this important research. It seems quite validating of the theoretical consciousness model of Penrose and Hameroff (Orch-OR).

I know the two of them have been gradually dismantling the "skeptics" objections to their theory in the past 20 some years, but had never seen something as rooted in physical observation as your links. Perhaps this line of research may one day satisfy the materialists?

Again, thank you.
 
#5
You're welcome. I have no interest in being right. As my name suggests, I explore all avenues without question. I do not disbelieve something until I can prove that it is not the correct answer. I'm as interested in learning as anyone else.
 
#6
This is probably the reason why many feel that they can share things with me that they don't really tell anyone. I had someone I worked with share with me their NDE, which kind of got me involved in this whole thing in the first place. Since then, it has been one exploration after another.
 
#8
Fair point. I guess it all has to do with the speed of light and how it relates to conciousness. This is a heavy amount of speculation, but we can assume that when getting information at a distance as was shown conclusively in some individuals in the Stargate project, it happens to somehow be faster than light can travel. How else was Ingo Swann able to describe the rings of Jupiter before the Phobos satelite even reached it? I suggest perhaps that this information at a distance is somehow related to light speed. Again, this is a heavy amount of speculation....
 
#9
I can't accept that any purely physical phenomenon can explain all of ψ - for example, how would it explain precognitive phenomena?

David
Nobody can explain how life started. I don't mean how a baby is formed, but how primitive life form (be it bacterium, virus or protein, such as prion) started from organic molecules. We can somehow explain how inorganic molecules turned into organic molecules ( be it from lightening, nitrogen and carbon, or from distant comets). Scientists try hard to create "life" in the lab, but they just insert artificial DNA into preexisting life form, never that "spark ". Can conciousness create life?
 
Last edited:
#10
Nobody can explain how life started. I don't mean how a baby is formed, but how primitive life form (be it bacterium, virus or protein, such as prion) started from organic molecules. We can somehow explain how inorganic molecules turned into organic molecules ( be it from lightening, nitrogen and carbon, or from distant comets). Scientists try hard to create "life" in the lab, but they just insert artificial DNA into preexisting life form, never that "spark ". Can conciousness create life?
Agreed - and the rise of epigenetics tells us that things are more complicated even that the standard DNA/RNA/proteins story. Some scientists talk of 'artificial life', but they aren't anywhere close to that.

Also the renowned chemist James Tour (look for his YouTube videos) makes a number of points about even the earlier stages - making the simpler starting molecules, such as amino acids, ribose, nucleaic acids etc.

In experiments that attempt to simulate pre-biotic chemistry, these things are detected in trace amounts. In a lab setting products have to be isolated and purified before you can proceed to the next step. In practice these trace products would probably just oxidise or otherwise degrade before they could build up into anything.

The main product from random organic chemistry is tar!

David
 
#11
Agreed - and the rise of epigenetics tells us that things are more complicated even that the standard DNA/RNA/proteins story. Some scientists talk of 'artificial life', but they aren't anywhere close to that.

Also the renowned chemist James Tour (look for his YouTube videos) makes a number of points about even the earlier stages - making the simpler starting molecules, such as amino acids, ribose, nucleaic acids etc.

In experiments that attempt to simulate pre-biotic chemistry, these things are detected in trace amounts. In a lab setting products have to be isolated and purified before you can proceed to the next step. In practice these trace products would probably just oxidise or otherwise degrade before they could build up into anything.

The main product from random organic chemistry is tar!

David
That is a fair point. It certainly does make you wonder. It's just like people that say that AI is self-aware. It may be learning through a complex data algorithm, so when can something be considered an entity? I think it's a fair question to ask since abortion is such a controversial topic. Is consciousness fundamental? I am starting to believe that it is.
 
#12
That is a fair point. It certainly does make you wonder. It's just like people that say that AI is self-aware. It may be learning through a complex data algorithm, so when can something be considered an entity? I think it's a fair question to ask since abortion is such a controversial topic. Is consciousness fundamental? I am starting to believe that it is.
I think a number of areas of science have simply got hooked on hype - it is degrading people's trust in science.

Wait until they have to shelve the driverless car idea. They will do it very quietly, but I am pretty sure it will happen. Specially prepared motorways might be one thing, but what use is a driverless car if someone has to drive it for part of every journey. The list of problems such a car would face in normal use, is immense:

Stray animals (I once encountered a loose horse on a motorway).
Road works.
Damaged road surfaces.
Children not paying attention.
Drunks.
Stuff spilled in the road, or likely to fall from a truck.
Oil spills.
Fog (but maybe all the extra sensors they add to such vehicles might handle fog).
Snow.
Road accidents.
Intense rain.
Blowing paper, which needs to be recognised as not being a hazard.
Fallen trees.
Broken traffic lights.
Emergency vehicles.

David
 
#13
That is a fair point. It certainly does make you wonder. It's just like people that say that AI is self-aware. It may be learning through a complex data algorithm, so when can something be considered an entity? I think it's a fair question to ask since abortion is such a controversial topic. Is consciousness fundamental? I am starting to believe that it is.
The key to elegance resides not in its beauty and brilliance, but rather its reach.

AI will struggle in the face of a blockchain of information which it cannot control. If we can establish sufficient means of generating the electricity (and I have a company working on that solution right now) - then distributed ledger technology, stands to be more powerful than AI.

What good is an all powerful god, who is also not omniscient, nor omnipresent? Its lack of knowledge/presence can be leveraged to neutralize its power.
 
Last edited:
#14
Agreed - and the rise of epigenetics tells us that things are more complicated even that the standard DNA/RNA/proteins story. Some scientists talk of 'artificial life', but they aren't anywhere close to that.

Also the renowned chemist James Tour (look for his YouTube videos) makes a number of points about even the earlier stages - making the simpler starting molecules, such as amino acids, ribose, nucleaic acids etc.

In experiments that attempt to simulate pre-biotic chemistry, these things are detected in trace amounts. In a lab setting products have to be isolated and purified before you can proceed to the next step. In practice these trace products would probably just oxidise or otherwise degrade before they could build up into anything.

The main product from random organic chemistry is tar!

David
Thank you for the recommendation of Dr. James Tour's video. He said time was not on the side of those trace pre-biotic molecules to evolve, because they're too unstable. However, time did increase the probabilities of the "random" events that led to the creations of those molecules to occur over and over again. Yet, in order for these molecules to accumulate into a substantial amount that'll overcome their innate instabilities, these "random" events had to occur simultaneously over and over again in a short period of time, which reduces that probability to almost zero, therefore..........
For someone who doesn't believe in "Spiritual Authority ", how do you feel about Dr. Tour's faith?
 
Last edited:
#15
Thank you for the recommendation of Dr. James Tour's video. He said time was not on the side of those trace pre-biotic molecules to evolve, because they're too unstable. However, time did increase the probabilities of the "random" events that led to the creations of those molecules to occur over and over again. Yet, in order for these molecules to accumulate into a substantial amount that'll overcome their innate instabilities, these "random" events had to occur simultaneously over and over again in a short period of time, which reduces that probability to almost zero, therefore..........
For someone who doesn't believe in "Spiritual Authority ", how do you feel about Dr. Tour's faith?
Well look, I did chemistry to PhD level, although my PhD was not in biochemistry.

I felt that while Tour's lecture was a bit histrionic, he made lots of excellent points. I mean, when they do experiments to simulate possible ancient conditions, they do get trace amounts of some relevant chemicals - some amino acids, traces of ribose (a sugar), etc. However, you need to think of those chemicals as somewhat akin to LEGO bricks or basic electronic components (capacitors, transistors, resistors, and inductances). They need to be combined in precise ways to get anything useful, and they won't stick around too long - they will degrade.

Building something relevant to biology - a protein say - would require:

a) Purifying the relevant starting materials and building up reasonable stocks (because none of these reactions give 100% yield - particularly when biological catalysts (enzymes) don't yet exist by definition.

b) Combining them - typically with other chemical reagents - in very carefully controlled conditions requires some precision. The temperature, reaction times, pressures, etc would be tightly controlled.

For DNA to do anything useful, it has to contain a code. Random DNA would be akin to what I get when my cat walks on my keyboard - amusing, but not useful!

Tour described the precise conditions required to perform some of the reactions that interest him, and compared those with what you could reasonably get by random pre-biotic chemistry.

I am not a Christian, so I support him in his conclusion that life could not evolve from non-life in any reasonable way. Beyond that, I agree also that evolution by natural selection isn't a feasible mechanism. The problem is that evolution by NS only really works if most steps are individually advantageous. Evolution of a new protein (say) would require many, many individual mutations, and half-finished proteins confer no selective advantage at all. That is where I think NS breaks down.

David

David
 
#16
Well look, I did chemistry to PhD level, although my PhD was not in biochemistry.

I felt that while Tour's lecture was a bit histrionic, he made lots of excellent points. I mean, when they do experiments to simulate possible ancient conditions, they do get trace amounts of some relevant chemicals - some amino acids, traces of ribose (a sugar), etc. However, you need to think of those chemicals as somewhat akin to LEGO bricks or basic electronic components (capacitors, transistors, resistors, and inductances). They need to be combined in precise ways to get anything useful, and they won't stick around too long - they will degrade.

Building something relevant to biology - a protein say - would require:

a) Purifying the relevant starting materials and building up reasonable stocks (because none of these reactions give 100% yield - particularly when biological catalysts (enzymes) don't yet exist by definition.

b) Combining them - typically with other chemical reagents - in very carefully controlled conditions requires some precision. The temperature, reaction times, pressures, etc would be tightly controlled.

For DNA to do anything useful, it has to contain a code. Random DNA would be akin to what I get when my cat walks on my keyboard - amusing, but not useful!

Tour described the precise conditions required to perform some of the reactions that interest him, and compared those with what you could reasonably get by random pre-biotic chemistry.

I am not a Christian, so I support him in his conclusion that life could not evolve from non-life in any reasonable way. Beyond that, I agree also that evolution by natural selection isn't a feasible mechanism. The problem is that evolution by NS only really works if most steps are individually advantageous. Evolution of a new protein (say) would require many, many individual mutations, and half-finished proteins confer no selective advantage at all. That is where I think NS breaks down.

David

David
I think Tour may rely too much on earth based chemistry, which is quite clumsy despite our advanced technology. What happened if primitive life came from outer space? The sky are full of nebula rich in hydrocarbon and other organic molecules. Some resilient organisms such as tardigrade can survive exposure in outer space, I am sure some primitive extremophile could, too. Elements such as oxygen or hydrogen exist in different forms on some exoplanets than what we have on earth, I am sure their chemical reactions will be quite different also. There are so much we don't know about, all we know for sure is only about 4% of the known universe. Dark matter accounts 85% of the total matter, and dark energy contributes 70% of the total energy. I am not saying that consciousness is not behind all these, i can't explain how alien life began either.
 
#17
I think Tour may rely too much on earth based chemistry, which is quite clumsy despite our advanced technology. What happened if primitive life came from outer space? The sky are full of nebula rich in hydrocarbon and other organic molecules. Some resilient organisms such as tardigrade can survive exposure in outer space, I am sure some primitive extremophile could, too. Elements such as oxygen or hydrogen exist in different forms on some exoplanets than what we have on earth, I am sure their chemical reactions will be quite different also. There are so much we don't know about, all we know for sure is only about 4% of the known universe. Dark matter accounts 85% of the total matter, and dark energy contributes 70% of the total energy. I am not saying that consciousness is not behind all these, i can't explain how alien life began either.
Some tiny organisms can survive exposure to space conditions, but they are frozen for the duration - they can't actually do anything. I mean sure, if you replace the idea of a warm puddle with the vastness of space, you would increase the chance that some interesting molecules would get created by chance. However, I think Tour is right - you really can't expect to get much out of random chemistry. I mean the more complex the chemical you are discussing, the less material you can expect to get - because there are so many ways along the way where the synthesis can go wrong. If chemists synthesise a large molecule in many steps, they simply have to purify after most, if not all steps. Suppose you think of a chemical reaction that produces:

10% A
20% B
20% C
15% D
and the rest is unidentified polymeric stuff, usually called 'tar'.

Now suppose you want to use A in the next step of the synthesis. If you have pure A then this might work out thus:

10% X (the desired product)
20% G
20% H
15% K
with the remainder 'tar' in addition to the tar from the previous stage!

However, if you just use the mix from the previous step, you get
1% X
Plus unwanted materials B1 B2 B3 where B from step 1 reacts again to make a range of products, plus C1, C2, C3, plus D1, D2, D3 plus
G, H, K, plus tar!

Remember that none of these reactions can make use of enzymes - because we are talking about the era before life.

That is just two steps, but imagine now that you carry on with 100 such steps - 10^(-10) of the end result is the desired product!

Maybe after eons of time, you get a galaxy full of (fairly poisonous) tar, and here and there, there is a the odd molecule that might be capable of starting life off - but they are scattered in that vast ocean of muck!

In any case, chemicals don't just join up and become life. Take a bacterium and rip it apart - it doesn't just spring back together again and carry on living!

Remember that viruses are not really alive in this sense, because they can only reproduce parasitically inside living cells cells.

To get actual life, you would need a lot more unlikely events to take place - but I think James Tour demolishes the idea that the chemicals to create primitive life emerge from puddles or randomly reacting chemicals.

David
 
#18
Then do you believe that there are lives, some may even be intelligent, on other planets in other solar systems? They may not even be carbon based. Elements on other planets can exist in different forms, which may behave differently from their counterparts on earth, their chemical reactions could also be different. By the way, I agree with you, I would not want to live in one of those nebula full of poisonous hydrocarbons, as I don't want to live on earth with accumulating toxic pollutants.
 
#19
Then do you believe that there are lives, some may even be intelligent, on other planets in other solar systems? They may not even be carbon based. Elements on other planets can exist in different forms, which may behave differently from their counterparts on earth, their chemical reactions could also be different. By the way, I agree with you, I would not want to live in one of those nebula full of poisonous hydrocarbons, as I don't want to live on earth with accumulating toxic pollutants.
First, let me just point out that if you quote a fragment of what someone has written, that identifies whom you are replying to - which makes discourse easier. Notice that you got an alert to indicate that I had replied to you - right here.

I try to avoid the use of the word 'believe' because this suggests the kind of believing that religious people like to do.

If in fact life on earth is intelligently created, it seems to me more likely that life may be found in other places - even in our solar system. This is because life need no-longer require a long list of outlandishly low probability events to bring it into existence.

While we are on the subject of ID, I came across this on the Discovery Institute website:

https://evolutionnews.org/2018/12/the-intelligent-design-underground-and-other-reflections/

Despite these challenges, I have been struck by how our message has been spreading largely underground. A biologist in our network worked as a postdoctoral researcher at Harvard. He recounted how about a quarter of the postdocs he encountered were at least sympathetic to design arguments, but none were willing to acknowledge their support publicly due to the likely repercussions. In addition, increasing numbers of scientists who are not even philosophically open to the possibility of design are secretly dialoguing with our scientists. They have grown weary of their colleagues misrepresenting the state of evolutionary theory to the public, and they have become dismayed over how so many have misrepresented the strength of our arguments.
I really can believe that, because Rupert Sheldrake also comments (in connection with ψ) that many scientists discuss his ideas with him in private, but do not want that to be known in public. I suspect that the official scientific views that there is nothing intelligent about evolution or life, and that ψ is nonexistent, may be becoming eroded from within.

David
 
Top