CONSCIOUSNESS AND SPECIES ADVANCEMENT – THE QUANTUM COMMUNICATING CELLULAR BASIS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (QCCBC) MODEL

By  Vince Giuliano   V5.42 December 16, 2024. 

Following images  created by Microsoft Co-Pilot AI

I did not expect to be writing about this subject again so soon.   This is an update reflecting a continuing shift in my thinking regarding biological species, consciousness, and quantum communications.   I have recently come across publications that indicate the existence of a group of people with models of consciousness similar to my own, but only up to a point.   Exponents call that model of thinking, the Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC) model .   That is a historically ancient model whose central precept is that all biological entities consisting of cells, even if only a single most-primitive cell, are conscious and exhibit conscious social behavior.   Here, I am proposing the further hypothesis that all such biological entities in a species are in communication with one another via quantum signaling probably resulting from DNA entanglement:  The Quantum-Communicating  Cellular Basis of Consciousness (QCCBC) model .  

To be clear, I am looking for a quantum model of communication that explains several things I have written about:

• The basis for consciousness and conscious behavior in higher multi-celled organisms that have brains.
• The basis for what appears to be intelligent species survival behavior in even the most primitive single-celled biological organisms.  One that has operated for some 4.6 billion years, long long before the emergence of multi-celled organisms or brains.
• The basis For Intentional Reality Creation (IRC).
• The basis for numerous other phenomena encountered in biology.  For for example sustained signaling inputs that in-vivo postpones the initiation of cellular senescence in certain centenarians and supercentenarians.

“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” From Hamlet by Shakespeare.

First, a few words that position QCCBC among other models of consciousness.  From the time of the most ancient philosophers through today there exists a hierarchy of incompatible theories of what consciousness consists of:

Representing panpsychism

Here I shall be concerned mainly with the QCCBC model and my extensions to it, although, in the future, I may choose to write about any of the others including panpsychism.  

Advantages and disadvantages of the models.

This December 2023 publication lays out the central elements of the CBC model and why it is superior to the HC and AB models, the two models embraced by most people today including biologists:  The CBC theory and its entailments: Why current models of the origin of consciousness fail: EMBO reports: Vol 25, No 1As I see them these elements are

• There are some 50 proposed theories of consciousness.  Most of these in one way or the other see consciousness as an emergent property of having brains.  These models pose serious problems from a contemporary viewpoint.  They have difficulty, for example  trying to explain conscious-like behavior and differentiate it from instinctive behavior in the vast majority of life forms that do not possess brains but yet display central elements of any reasonable definition of consciousness.
• According to the CBC model, all biological organisms, including the most primitive single-cell ones manifest consciousness. Consciousness is not confined to the tiny group of organisms that possess brains.  This is something I have been saying in my recent publications and is a first departure from the orthodoxy treated here.

“In this paper, we follow the evolutionary origins of cells as unicellular organisms and their evolution towards multicellularity, with a focus on plants and animals, both of which have two basic types of organismal self-identities: the immunological and the neuronal.

 In our symbiotic concept of eukaryogenesis, the first ancient eukaryotic cells emerged from the merger of a large amoeba-like host cell with a small flagellated guest cell which later transformed into the eukaryotic nucleus. This duality at the origin of the eukaryotic cell matches with the duality of sexual gametes. It also corresponds to the immune system/neural dualities of organismal self-identities in both animals and plants.”      

 In other words it goes back some 4.6 billion years in earth’s history, to the era of emergence of the first primitive single-cell organisms.  Not just a meager 600 million years for the era of emergence of brains.  See The Evolution and Complete Timeline of Life on Earth. 

From the EMBO report cited above: “INTRODUCTION: CELLS AS BASIC UNITS OF LIFE’S SUBJECTIVITY – “Cells represent the fundamental units of life and underlie the most basic features of living organisms, including sentience. Recently, we developed the cellular basis of consciousness (CBC) theory of the origin of sentience, identifying several bio-molecular features inherent to all cells (Baluška & Reber, 2019, 2021a, b; Baluška et al., 2021; Reber & Baluška, 2021, 2022). The most important feature for cellular cognition is the limiting membrane of cells, the plasma membrane, which defines the inside (subjectivity) from the outside (environment). In other words, the very first cells expressed their version of subjectivity (self-awareness) as an instantiation of sentience that defines the living state and is inherent to all cells. The excitable membrane is unique, a smart and sensory lipid barrier sheltering the inside from the outside and is still not well understood (Lintilhac, 1999; Lombard, 2014). The plasma membrane is the essential element of the information management system of the sentient cell, serving as a smart permeable barrier that allows cells to resist the second law of thermodynamics effectively and maintain their living cellular order (Lintilhac, 1999) out of thermodynamic equilibrium. In other words, excitable membranes represent the most important feature allowing emergence and maintenance of cellular subjectivity, which guides sentience, behaviour and the evolution of all organisms (Miller, 2018; Miller & Torday, 2018; Miller et al., 2019, 2020a, b; Baluška et al., 2021). Cells are the only autonomic, self-replicating systems capable of extracting energy from the abiotic environment and violating the entropic principle via cognitive processes organized by their limiting membranes. Recent analysis has revealed that ancient cyanobacteria ‘invented’ photosynthesis 3.4 billion years ago, which means that oxygenic photosynthesis existed 500 million years before the so-called great oxygenation event (Fournier et al., 2021). This evolutionary invention changed forever Earth’s geochemistry and allowed subsequent evolution of cells of greater complexity.“

Representing cells and evolution

Continuing “The cellular limiting membrane is maintained actively by cells and cannot form de novo. Instead, cellular membranes require cell division for their existence. As Jesper Hoffmeyer noted, this smart border has features of the Möbius strip with a co-linked inside and outside. This Möbius strip can serve as a topological representation of self-reference since it contains both an ‘inside exterior’ and an ‘outside interior’ that generates subject-ness (Hoffmeyer, 1998). Thus, the cell membrane is an epicentric factor in selfhood and sentience, permitting the restricted flow of small molecules that is essential to maintain the living state. All evolution is dependent on the successive chains of consecutive cell divisions that extend from the first living cells through the hypothetical ur-cell (a proposed ur-metazoan cell as a theoretical last common cellular ancestor of all animals). This historical aspect of life means that every living organism is linked through an unbroken chain of dividing cells up from the very first cells which evolved some 4.0 billion years ago. The continuity and unity of cellular life and perpetuation of its limiting and excitable plasma membrane are the defining unique features of life.”

Representing continuity and diversity of cellular life

Continuing: “ “– the fact is that living cells finally evolved and all life was unicellular for the first 3 billion years. The first fully integrated multicellular organisms appeared only some 600 million years ago (Herron et al., 2009; Coates et al., 2015; Niklas & Newman, 2020). In contrast to the very long unicellular stage, eukaryotic multicellularity evolved relatively rapidly and repeatedly into the three basic types of multicellular organisms: fungi, plants and animals.”

Here we first encounter mention in the literature of quantum phenomena in the CBC literature, namely tunneling. “Besides deploying extracellular vesicles, ancient cells presumably communicated through tunnelling nanotube (TNT) cell–cell channels that are present in all organisms (in plants they are historically termed plasmodesmata), allowing direct transfer of a variety of molecules and electrical cell–cell couplings (Rustom et al., 2004; Baluška et al., 2004; Wang & Gerdes, 2012; Matkó & Tóth, 2021; Scheiblich et al., 2021). Importantly in this regard, both extracellular vesicles and TNTs act as cellular mediators of immune self-identity (Tóth et al., 2017; Reis et al., 2018; Quaglia et al., 2020; Askenase, 2021; Birtwistle et al., 2021; Matkó & Tóth, 2021; Racchetti & Meldolesi, 2021). We consider these extracellular vesicles to represent analogous structures to ancient vesicles, which evolved initially into the proto-cells and then into the most ancient archaea and bacteria.”

Representing centrality of cells in life

So far so good but there is a central weakness in most renditions of this model. That weakness is seeing most intraspecies communication only in very local terms, namely paracrine (touching) communications and local releases of gasses and particles.  The DNA itself of a particular species is usually seen to embody storage of all the threat analyses related to competing species and how to respond to those threats. I think:

• There are far too many competing species and they could combine their competition against a particular species S in far too many ways for every piece of DNA in every cell in every member of the S species to encode them all and what to do about them.  This would imply gross redundancy if it were so, a property uncharacteristic of nature.
  • Information gathered locally would be inadequate to characterize future threats experienced due to changes in local circumstances, such as could be brought about by changes in weather patterns or migration of other species.  Of course, subgroups of members of a species can and do exhibit local survival-related characteristics.  An example in humans is skin color.  But every species has its portfolio of member characteristics, distinct from the portfolios of other species.

Representing competition among life forms

So there is a need for intraspecies communications, leading me to a QCCBC model which I shall proceed to shortly, after pursuing a discussion of the putative intelligent behavior of plants

ON PLANT SENTIENCE

Representing plant sentience

Plants can exhibit numerous kinds of survival or aggression-related behavior that can be construed as examples of intelligence,  both defensive and aggressive.  It appears that members of a species can consciously discern opportunities and threats to their individual well-being, given complex and often social criteria.  They can then plan aggressive or defensive strategies, and  communicate with other members of their species or related species  to enroll other plants, insects and even mammals in mutual action campaigns.  A few examples:                  

1. Communication:
   1. Chemical Signaling: Plants release chemical signals to communicate with each other. For example, when a plant is attacked by herbivores, it can release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to warn neighboring plants, which then activate their own defense mechanisms.  Or it might upgrade chemicals, which make it unpalatable and even poisonous.
2. Memory and Learning:
   1. Mimosa Pudica: This plant can “remember” previous experiences. When repeatedly touched or shaken, it learns to ignore these stimuli and stops folding its leaves as a defensive response, showing a form of habituation.
3. Problem-Solving:
   1. Root Navigation: Plant roots can navigate through the soil, avoiding obstacles and finding the most efficient paths to water and nutrients. This involves complex sensory and adaptive behaviors, such as deciding what, if anything, to do about roots of plants of other species it encounters.
4. Environmental Adaptation:
   1. Phototropism: Plants can sense the direction of light and grow towards it to maximize photosynthesis. This ability to detect and respond to environmental cues demonstrates a sophisticated form of sensory intelligence.
5. Resource Management:
   1. Resource Allocation: Plants can allocate resources strategically. For example, they might direct more nutrients to new growth when conditions are favorable or conserve resources during droughts.
   1. Allelopathy:  Some plants like black walnut (Juglans nigra), release chemicals into the soil that inhibit the growth of nearby competing plants. This ability to suppress competitors demonstrates a sophisticated survival strategy.
6. Adaptive Growth:
   1. Climbing Plants: Vines and climbing plants, such as ivy and morning glories, can sense nearby structures and grow towards them, using them for support as they reach for sunlight.
7. Seed Dispersal:
   1. Explosive Mechanisms: Some plants, like the touch-me-not (Impatiens), have seed pods that burst open when touched, flinging seeds far from the parent plant to reduce competition and spread their offspring widely.
8. Hydrotropism:
   1. Water Seeking   Roots can sense moisture gradients in the soil and grow towards areas with higher water concentrations. This ability helps plants efficiently access water sources.
9. Mycorrhiz Events of plants
   1. Fungal Communication: Plants often form symbiotic relationships with mycorrhizal fungi, creating vast underground networks that allow them to share nutrients and communicate with each other.
10. Circadian Rhythms:
    1. Timekeeping: Many plants have internal biological clocks that follow circadian rhythms, allowing them to anticipate daily and seasonal changes in light and temperature, optimizing their growth and flowering cycles accordingly.
11. Defensive metabolites
    1.  Many plants produce secondary metabolites, like alkaloids and tannins, which can be toxic or unpalatable to herbivores.
12. Nutrient Allocation:
    1. Root Growth: Plants can allocate resources to different parts of their root systems depending on nutrient availability, ensuring they maximize their nutrient uptake from the soil.
13. Symbiotic Relationships:
    1. Legume-Rhizobium Symbiosis: Legume plants form partnerships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria (Rhizobium), which live in root nodules and convert atmospheric nitrogen into a form the plant can use for growth.

Similar observations apply to fungi species

Representing awareness and communication among fungal species

These examples showcase the diverse and intelligent strategies plants use to survive and thrive in their environments. Their ability to adapt, communicate, and respond to various stimuli highlights the remarkable complexity of both plant and fungal life.  They also exemplify why it is hard to believe that the necessary diagnostic information and contingent action strategies are hard-coded in the DNA of every plant cell.  Again, I prefer a model that embodies species-wide communications for virtually all living entities: a QUANTUM-COMMUNICATING  CELLULAR BASIS OF CONSCIOUSNESS (QCCBC) MODEL

I focus here only on the most researched and experimentally validated theory in this family: THE PENROSE-HAMEROFF ORCHESTRATED OBJECTIVE REDUCTION (ORCH) THEORY.

The Penrose-Hameroff “Orch OR” theory, which stands for “Orchestrated Objective Reduction,” proposes that consciousness arises from quantum computations occurring within microtubules inside cells, even the most primitive ones containing tubulin, a key structural elements of virtually all cells in the animal, insect, plant and fungal kingdoms.  According to this theory, the “collapse” of quantum superpositions (known as “objective reduction”) in brain cells is a key mechanism for generating conscious experience; essentially suggesting that microtubules act as quantum computers, serving as the computational units responsible for conscious awareness. 

Image represents microtubles as quantum computers

Hameroff  himself presented the strengths and benefits of this theory in his 2020 online publication ORCH OR IS THE MOST COMPLETE, AND MOST EASILY FALSIFIABLE THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS.  “The ‘Orch OR’ theory attributes consciousness to quantum computations in microtubules inside brain neurons. Quantum computers process information as superpositions of multiple possibilities (quantum bits or qubits) which, in Orch OR, are alternative collective dipole oscillations orchestrated (‘Orch’) by microtubules. These orchestrated oscillations entangle, compute, and terminate (‘collapse of the wavefunction’) by Penrose objective reduction (‘OR’), resulting in sequences of Orch OR moments with orchestrated conscious experience (metaphorically more like music than computation). Each Orch OR event selects microtubule states that govern neuronal functions. Orch OR has broad explanatory power, and is easily falsifiable.”

Since the original publication of this theory, it has led to substantial research by uninvolved researchers resulting in significant experimental evidence, hundreds of research publications,  and significant professional controversy.

KEY POINTS ABOUT THE ORCH OR THEORY:

• Microtubules as quantum computers:

The theory posits that microtubules, protein structures within neurons, have the necessary properties to perform quantum computations due to their lattice structure and potential for quantum superposition.  It is important to note that all cells, not just brain cells or nervous cells contain microtubules and could therefore act as quantum computers.

• Objective reduction (OR):

This is a concept proposed by physicist Roger Penrose, where a quantum superposition collapses spontaneously due to gravitational effects at a certain threshold, leading to a discrete state.  This corresponds to the collapse of the wave function in the classical Explanation of quantum physics.  Prior to the collapse, there was a superposition of multiple states.  When this happens in neurons in brains, the neural network experiences an event of consciousness.

• Orchestration:

Stuart Hameroff, a neuroscientist, added the “orchestration” aspect, suggesting that the microtubule network within a neuron coordinates quantum computations in a way that is influenced by synaptic inputs and other neuronal activity.  By focusing on what goes on in brain neurons in synaptic networks of neurons, the ORC process provides the translation between the Quantum behavior of microtubules which is evolutionarily invisible to us, and the overall symptoms of consciousness

• Conscious experience:

The “collapse” of the quantum superposition during objective reduction is thought to correspond to a moment of conscious experience.  This happens in brain networks of neurons.   However, all body cells contain tubulin and should similarly host quantum communications.  So, a similar collapse can occur in essentially any cells elsewhere in the body but may not be perceived As a conscious event by the nervous system.  But such collapses could have a massive impact, say with distant quantum-entangled cells of the same species.  And this can occur in simple organisms, even single-cell ones.

• Criticisms of the Orch OR theory:
• Delicate quantum environment:

Critics argue that the brain environment is too “noisy” and “to wet” to maintain quantum coherence necessary for quantum computations within microtubules. 

• Lack of experimental evidence:

Despite ongoing research, there is currently no definitive experimental evidence to support the Orch OR theory.   Actually, this is not the case.

I have focused on this theory not simply because it satisfies its original objective of explaining consciousness, but because the underlying mechanism of the model (quantum inter-cellular coupling) can readily be extended to provide what I am looking for.  Again that is: a quantum model of communication that additionally explains:

• The basis for what appears to be intelligent species survival behavior in even the most primitive single-celled biological organisms.  One that has operated since the era of origin of life on earth, for some 4.6 billion years.
  • The basis For Intentional Reality Creation (IRC).
  • The basis for numerous other phenomena encountered in biology. 

Finally, I go on to cite some of the key evidence for this theory.    Here are a few additional key articles and sources related to the Pentose-Hameroff Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory:

1. “Consciousness in the Universe: An Updated Review of the Orch OR Theory” by Stuart R. Hameroff and Roger Penrose. This article provides an updated review of the Orch OR theory, discussing its implications for consciousness and its connection to quantum processes in brain microtubules1.
2. “Biophysics of Consciousness: A Foundational Approach” by R. R. Poznanski, J. A. Tuszynski, and T. E. Feinberg (Chapter 14: “Consciousness in the Universe: An Updated Review of the Orch OR Theory”). This book chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the Orch OR theory and its development2.
3. “Orch OR: Consciousness and Orch OR” by Stuart Hameroff, MD. This overview on Hameroff’s website provides insights into the Orch OR theory and its connection to microtubules and quantum processes.
4. Indirect evidence for the validity of the theory appears to come from two directions, understanding of anesthesia, and known properties of assemblages of microtubules.

Hameroff, with his background in anesthesiology, proposed that anesthetic gases work by disrupting the quantum processes in microtubules, thereby blocking consciousness.  Some experimental evidence supports this.  See CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE UNIVERSE AN UPDATED REVIEW OF THE \u201CORCH OR\u201D THEORY”: This chapter by Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose offers an updated review of the Orch OR theory, discussing its implications for consciousness and anesthesia.

It is known that tubulin can be excited to vibrate at different frequencies, and these have been studied and are known to be different for human, plant, and fungal microtubulin.

MICROTUBULES GENERAL PROPERTIES

• Microtubules play several key roles in cells and have been extensively studied.  Namely a. They are key structural elements supporting the shapes of cells, b.  they play a key role in cell division (mitosis and meiosis).  microtubules form the mitotic spindle, which helps segregate chromosomes into daughter cells. c, they serve as key railways for the movement of substances, organelles and vesicles  in cells, allowing motor proteins to move these.  And d. Microtubules are key components of cilia and flagella, enabling cell movement.  Microtubules have an average outer diameter of about 25 nanometers (nm), with an inner diameter of about 15 nm.  They can vary greatly in length, typically ranging from several micrometers to hundreds of micrometers, depending on the cell type and function.  They are highly dynamic structures, constantly undergoing periods of growth and shrinkage. The plus end of a microtubule can grow at rates of approximately 1 micrometer per minute under optimal conditions.  The rate of shrinkage can be even faster, sometimes reaching up to 10 micrometers per minute.  This dynamic instability allows microtubules to rapidly reorganize in response to cellular needs, such as during cell division or in response to changes in the cellular environment.  While microtubules are found in virtually all cells of all successful species, their configurations appear to be species-specific and vary widely.

QUANTUM PROPERTIES OF MICROTUBULES

1. Quantum Superposition: Microtubules can maintain quantum superposition states, allowing them to exist in multiple states simultaneously.  Quantum tunneling has been observed in them.
2. Quantum Decoherence: Microtubules interact with their environment, leading to quantum decoherence, where quantum states transition to classical states.
3. Quantum Vibrations: Research has shown that microtubules exhibit quantum vibrations, which may play a role in neural processing and consciousness.

Hypothesized Quantum Properties of Microtubules:

1. Quantum Computation: The Orchestrated Objective Reduction (Orch OR) theory suggests that microtubules could function as quantum computers, processing information at a quantum level.
2. Objective Reduction: According to the Orch OR model, the reduction of microtubule quantum superposition to classical output states occurs due to an objective factor related to quantum gravity.

Citations:

1. Kaushik Naskar & Parthasarathi Joarder. “Quantum decoherence in microtubules.” Quantum Information Processing, 2024.
2. Stuart Hameroff. “Quantum computation in brain microtubules? The Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model of consciousness.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 1998.
3. Ivan Kukuljan. “Microtubules: from classical properties to quantum effects in human cognition.” University of Ljubljana, 2013.

COMMENTS AND VG SPECULATIONS

It is exciting to me that a quantum model, The Penrose-Hameroff ‘Orch OR’ model in this instance can explain phenomena that cannot be explained in conventional physics. In particular:

Intelligent and coordinated survival behavior – even among members of the most primitive species, with only single-cell members.  I like to think that the DNA of all members of a species is from the origin of the species entangled.  And thus, being part of a single entity no matter how far apart the species members may be, important changes at one place are felt instantaneously at all entangled plaaces.  Entanglement means the quantum processing power of the tubulin in every cell in every species member can combine.  And I think it does so combine.  How can we be so smart compared to mosquitos but yet experience that in terms of survival advantage, they continue to outsmart us?

Image represents the question of how smart mosquito DNA is compared to human DNA

Intention-based Retrocausality.  How could it be that so many thousands of physical parameters and specific conditions here on Earth have been just right for the flourishing of life and species?  I have suggested in my writings that species have generated quantum fields of intentionality that go back and affect unknown aspects of the past.  Yes, phenomena that act in reverse time and retrocausality are acknowledged phenomena in quantum physics. Living species served to create a past that translates in ordinary physics to where after the fact, laws of cause-and-effects apply.  See my blog entries.

Intention-based Reality Creation (IRC).  I perceived, intuited, and started making notes about IRC as a repeated observed pattern in my life in my 20s, long before I had any inkling of mechanisms that could conceivably make it possible.   In my 30s and 40s I also recognized the quantum-like nature of IRCs and how many insights of quantum physics could be applied to IRC.  I generated more extensive private written notes, keeping them in drawers.   In 1990 at age 60 I wrote the first edition of my treatise on that subject and published this online On Being and Creation.   I upgraded and republished this document several times over the years, the last edition being the one you see now, dated 2019.   At age 87 I began to conceive of major enhancements to grasping and explaining the quantum physics underpinnings of IRC as I saw them working.  The main interpretations I was concerned with, described in this treatise, are the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI), the Parallel Universes Interpretation (PUI), and the Transactional Interaction Interpretation (TI).   Each provides an alternative way of looking at QM or IRC.  I became aware of the Penrose-Hameroff ORC model only late in the game and added a description of that to the treatise about 8 years ago, when I was about 87.   My interest in and research related to this subject continued to accelerate as time passed, although my original treatise was already getting to be too long.  I wrote these as stand-alone documents. Recently, I organized these into a new Being and Creation blog. Consisting of long articles covering relevant but archane aspects of quantum physics with personal experiences, I believe these blog articles significantly expand on what is in the original treatise.  This current article is one such blog entry, expanding on what I know about the QCCBC model of consciousness. 

Image represents how primitive I experience we are seeking answers to ponderous questions