Tweet
767 views
I am loathe to start new threads wily-nily but, I found a topic so interesting that it deserves a lot of attention. I have studied it for some time.
Reportedly, 50% of our DNA is junk DNA. I seriously doubt that. The human body needs 60 elements but, they only know what 20 of them do. Does that make the other 66% functionally useless? Just because they don't know what the virus and virus-like DNA do, doesn't make it junk. We have more bacteria cells than human cells. I have no desire to get rid of any of it.
The Mitochondria is VERY interesting in that it is a foreign "parasite" All large-cell organisms have Mitochondria. Where did it come from? Is it Earth origin? How long ago did it insinuate itself into host cells?
The traditional view posits that the host that acquired the mitochondrion was an anaerobic nucleus-bearing cell, a full-fledged eukaryote that was able to engulf the mitochondrion actively via phagocytosis
the initial benefit of the symbiosis might have been the endosymbiont's ability to detoxify oxygen for the anaerobe host
The mechanism by which the endosymbiont came to reside within the host is unspecified in this view,
The oldest undisputedly eukaryotic microfossils go back 1.45 billion years in the fossil record. Given the coincidence of mitochondria with the eukaryotic state, this can also be seen as a minimum age for mitochondria and a rough best-guess starting date for eukaryotic evolution. According to newer geochemical views, this date of origin corresponds to a protracted phase in Earth history when the oceans were mostly anoxic from 1.8 billion years ago until about 580 million years ago
Like eukaryotes themselves, mitochondria appear to have arisen only once in all of evolution.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...ndria-14232356
Did Mitochondria spring from a discarded coke bottle/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pgANtzO2G4
Getting down to brass tacks. ALL large-cell life depends on Mitochondria to produce the energy in a cell via the production of ATP.
A LOOSE interpretation of one of the effects of quantum mechanics is; when we observe an action we change the outcome of that action.
Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved.
When this "observer effect" was first noticed by the early pioneers of quantum theory, they were deeply troubled.
"Quantum consciousness" is widely derided as mystical woo, but it just will not go away.
Some of those researchers felt forced to conclude that objectivity was an illusion, and that consciousness has to be allowed an active role in quantum theory.
Today some physicists suspect that, whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might in fact arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works.
If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion we change the outcome.
put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."
As long as we measure the photon's path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference.
It is as if nature "knows" not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look.
But one way or another, it is hard to avoid the implication that consciousness and quantum mechanics are somehow linked.
What if, Penrose asked, there are molecular structures in our brains that are able to alter their state in response to a single quantum event. Could not these structures then adopt a superposition state,
Penrose believes that quantum superpositions become impossible for objects much larger than atoms, because their gravitational effects would then force two incompatible versions of space-time to coexist.
In a study published in 2015, physicist Matthew Fisher of the University of California at Santa Barbara argued that the brain might contain molecules capable of sustaining more robust quantum superpositions. Specifically, he thinks that the nuclei of phosphorus atoms may have this ability.
Phosphorus atoms are everywhere in living cells. They often take the form of phosphate ions, in which one phosphorus atom joins up with four oxygen atoms.
Such ions are the basic unit of energy within cells. Much of the cell's energy is stored in molecules called ATP, .
In Posner molecules, Fisher argues, phosphorus spins could resist decoherence for a day or so, even in living cells. That means they could influence how the brain works.
"I wasn't looking for a quantum explanation," Fisher says. But then he came across a paper reporting that lithium drugs had different effects on the behaviour of rats, depending on what form or "isotope" of lithium was used.
On the face of it, that was extremely puzzling. In chemical terms, different isotopes behave almost identically, so if the lithium worked like a conventional drug the isotopes should all have had the same effect.
For example, if lithium substitutes for calcium in Posner molecules, the lithium spins might "feel" and influence those of phosphorus atoms, and so interfere with their entanglement.
We do not even know what consciousness is
If this is true, it would help to explain why lithium can treat bipolar disorder.
It does not help that there is now a New Age cottage industry devoted to notions of "quantum consciousness", claiming that quantum mechanics offers plausible rationales for such things as telepathy and telekinesis.
BBC - Earth - The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics
Are the mitochondria and ATP responsible for consciousness in large-cell organisms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEYu6lY0BfA&t=80s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1dAnpSFbyI&t=18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkYEYjintqU
I am loathe to start new threads wily-nily but, I found a topic so interesting that it deserves a lot of attention. I have studied it for some time.
Reportedly, 50% of our DNA is junk DNA. I seriously doubt that. The human body needs 60 elements but, they only know what 20 of them do. Does that make the other 66% functionally useless? Just because they don't know what the virus and virus-like DNA do, doesn't make it junk. We have more bacteria cells than human cells. I have no desire to get rid of any of it.
The Mitochondria is VERY interesting in that it is a foreign "parasite" All large-cell organisms have Mitochondria. Where did it come from? Is it Earth origin? How long ago did it insinuate itself into host cells?
The traditional view posits that the host that acquired the mitochondrion was an anaerobic nucleus-bearing cell, a full-fledged eukaryote that was able to engulf the mitochondrion actively via phagocytosis
the initial benefit of the symbiosis might have been the endosymbiont's ability to detoxify oxygen for the anaerobe host
The mechanism by which the endosymbiont came to reside within the host is unspecified in this view,
The oldest undisputedly eukaryotic microfossils go back 1.45 billion years in the fossil record. Given the coincidence of mitochondria with the eukaryotic state, this can also be seen as a minimum age for mitochondria and a rough best-guess starting date for eukaryotic evolution. According to newer geochemical views, this date of origin corresponds to a protracted phase in Earth history when the oceans were mostly anoxic from 1.8 billion years ago until about 580 million years ago
Like eukaryotes themselves, mitochondria appear to have arisen only once in all of evolution.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/topi...ndria-14232356
Did Mitochondria spring from a discarded coke bottle/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pgANtzO2G4
Getting down to brass tacks. ALL large-cell life depends on Mitochondria to produce the energy in a cell via the production of ATP.
A LOOSE interpretation of one of the effects of quantum mechanics is; when we observe an action we change the outcome of that action.
Perhaps the most renowned of its mysteries is the fact that the outcome of a quantum experiment can change depending on whether or not we choose to measure some property of the particles involved.
When this "observer effect" was first noticed by the early pioneers of quantum theory, they were deeply troubled.
"Quantum consciousness" is widely derided as mystical woo, but it just will not go away.
Some of those researchers felt forced to conclude that objectivity was an illusion, and that consciousness has to be allowed an active role in quantum theory.
Today some physicists suspect that, whether or not consciousness influences quantum mechanics, it might in fact arise because of it. They think that quantum theory might be needed to fully understand how the brain works.
If we place a detector inside or just behind one slit, we can find out whether any given particle goes through it or not. In that case, however, the interference vanishes. Simply by observing a particle's path even if that observation should not disturb the particle's motion we change the outcome.
put it like this: "observations not only disturb what has to be measured, they produce it We compel [a quantum particle] to assume a definite position." In other words, Jordan said, "we ourselves produce the results of measurements."
As long as we measure the photon's path before its arrival at a detector is finally registered, we lose all interference.
It is as if nature "knows" not just if we are looking, but if we are planning to look.
But one way or another, it is hard to avoid the implication that consciousness and quantum mechanics are somehow linked.
What if, Penrose asked, there are molecular structures in our brains that are able to alter their state in response to a single quantum event. Could not these structures then adopt a superposition state,
Penrose believes that quantum superpositions become impossible for objects much larger than atoms, because their gravitational effects would then force two incompatible versions of space-time to coexist.
In a study published in 2015, physicist Matthew Fisher of the University of California at Santa Barbara argued that the brain might contain molecules capable of sustaining more robust quantum superpositions. Specifically, he thinks that the nuclei of phosphorus atoms may have this ability.
Phosphorus atoms are everywhere in living cells. They often take the form of phosphate ions, in which one phosphorus atom joins up with four oxygen atoms.
Such ions are the basic unit of energy within cells. Much of the cell's energy is stored in molecules called ATP, .
In Posner molecules, Fisher argues, phosphorus spins could resist decoherence for a day or so, even in living cells. That means they could influence how the brain works.
"I wasn't looking for a quantum explanation," Fisher says. But then he came across a paper reporting that lithium drugs had different effects on the behaviour of rats, depending on what form or "isotope" of lithium was used.
On the face of it, that was extremely puzzling. In chemical terms, different isotopes behave almost identically, so if the lithium worked like a conventional drug the isotopes should all have had the same effect.
For example, if lithium substitutes for calcium in Posner molecules, the lithium spins might "feel" and influence those of phosphorus atoms, and so interfere with their entanglement.
We do not even know what consciousness is
If this is true, it would help to explain why lithium can treat bipolar disorder.
It does not help that there is now a New Age cottage industry devoted to notions of "quantum consciousness", claiming that quantum mechanics offers plausible rationales for such things as telepathy and telekinesis.
BBC - Earth - The strange link between the human mind and quantum physics
Are the mitochondria and ATP responsible for consciousness in large-cell organisms?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEYu6lY0BfA&t=80s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1dAnpSFbyI&t=18s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkYEYjintqU
Comment