How biology harnesses electricity to create consciousness | Nick Lane

Alright, my schedule is clear, time to get back to Nick Lane, I’ve done a lot of learning from this man over the years, having read, Oxygen: The Molecule that made the World; Life Ascending: The Ten Great Inventions of Evolution; The Vital Question: Why is life the way it is?, and most recently Transformer, with what I believe is it’s transformational epilogue, SELF, where he summarizes a couple decades worth of research & musing by one of our top tier living scientists.

May 23, 2024 #consciousness #mitochondria #magneticfield
(15 min, though a search will reveal many more substantive talks on YouTube by Professor Nick Lane.)

Nick Lane discusses the emergence of consciousness as a result of mitochondrial action. Might consciousness arise from magnetic fields? Watch the full talk at https://iai.tv/video/electricity-crea… How could calcium ions rushing through a membrane generate the taste of coffee, the smell of a rose or the feeling of love? Join celebrated biochemist, Nick Lane, as he argues that the deep logic of life is at root an electrical phenomenon.

‘His theories are ingenious, breath-taking in scope, and challenging in every sense’ - The Guardian #consciousness #magneticfield #mitochondria Nick Lane is an multi-award-winning biochemist and an outstanding science communicator in the origins of life field. He is a Professor of Evolutionary Biochemistry at University College London and a bestselling author of five critically-acclaimed books on evolutionary biochemistry, selling over 150,000 copies worldwide.

Transformer: The Deep Chemistry of Life and Death (2022) explores the elusive chemical logic of life, from genetic information to consciousness. The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics.

I wonder if any of his talk touches anyone here? If not, why not?

Because right here is where the physical science comes face to face with the fallacy within philosophy’s great Hard Problem. It’s one of those ill-formed question that says more about the questioner, than the topic.

I’m finally finished, here we go past my opinion and into what the science tells us. In this case, by way of sharing most of the text of an amazing epilogue. Although here I simply share my introduction.

A scientific approach to understanding your “Self” - Nick Lane PhD.

Here Dr. Nick Lane describes the source; where the metaphorical spark; that starts the cascade; that makes us, us; is to be found.

I share extensive quotes from Dr. Nick Lane’s recent book Transformer, specifically its epilogue, “Self” — which seems to me the best street level summary of current scientific understanding regarding our physical body, as the ultimate source of our thoughts and feelings, in short our mind & soul.

Why do I believe this is important? Because, Evolution and biological realities receive too much hollow lip service, and too little detailed attention. Philosophers tend to keep it within the bubble of their thoughts. Seemingly valuing dialogue more than getting into the weeds of evolutionary biology to find out what nature & evolution has to teach us about the source of consciousness.

What follows is offered as food for thought. An invitation to explore Nick Lane’s report. To gain a deeper understanding of how the interaction between body, brain, and life itself gives rise to our consciousness — and while all the details aren’t filled in, an internally consistent outline is becoming clear enough — backed by the consilience of scientific evidence. We should start taking it seriously.

As Dr. Solms points out elsewhere: the best way to understand consciousness is, as a reflection of our body/brain communicating with itself. This is my puny challenge to philosophy departments to take notice, and start formulating better, more relevant questions regarding our human condition.
Professor Nick Lane PhD writes in his epilogue to the book “Transformer

I claim fair use, to justify this reprinting and sharing

¶1 “ ‘I think therefore I am’ said Descartes, in one of the most celebrated lines ever written. But what am I, exactly? … What is a quantum of solace?”

¶2 “In this book, we’ve explored the dynamic side of biochemistry, the continuous flow of energy and matter that makes us alive. …”

Why do all this? Besides the simple learning aspect of the doing of it, it’s that now I have something constructive and honest as death to point at, when confronted with handwaving …

I wonder if it’s you who is not forming the question correctly. I’m not going to answer this until I’m sure you have it right. Nick says

Sure, he could be wrong on the details, but on the big picture, “I can’t possibly be, because at bottom all I am saying is that energy is important to life, and that the peculiar method by which it works surely tells us something important about how life operates.”

The rest of this article is focused on his work of the origins of mitochondrial life. Can you show me something concrete where he makes the kind of clear statements that you do about how the hard problem is a fallacy? Otherwise, I’m responding to your opinion, not the data that you claim backs it up.

In the first three minutes of this, he says he doesn’t have an answer to how consciousness arises. Has that changed in the last there years?

Yes I am sure that Chalmers Hard Problem claims physical sciences as established can never figure it out, without incorporating some sort woo, into their deliberations,

Try the experiment with AI Overview
Yes I am sure that Chalmers Hard Problem claims physical sciences as established can never figure it?

You’re right that

David Chalmers’s Hard Problem of Consciousnessargues current physical sciences struggle to explain why and howphysical brain processes create subjective, qualitative experiences(qualia), suggesting a fundamental gap beyond typical materialist explanations, potentially requiring new theories like panpsychism or radical shifts, though Chalmers believes a solution might exist, even if not through current methods.

On principle that is thinking our mind can know more than nature.

I insist that science can and is progressing.

And the more I hear and read about the Hard Problem - the more it reminds me of the mentality and tactic behind Climate Science Denial, that might contribute to my increasing contemptuous feeling for that brand of philosophy and argumentation.

Science is about learning and doing the best we can with the information we have at hand.

Whereas philosophy is about finding god or meaning or what ever - all from within our own minds, rarely taking the time to touch back with physical reality - something that real scientists most certainly must constantly be doing.

0:02
LEX: we’re becoming cyborgs and uh there’s an interesting interplay between wires and biology you know zeros and ones and the biological systems and i don’t think you can just i don’t think we’ll have the luxury to see humans as disjoint from the technology we’ve created for much longer we are in organisms that’s

LANE: yeah i mean i agree with you but we come really with this to consciousness

LEX: yes

LANE: and is there a distinction there because what you’re saying the natural end point says we are indistinguishable that if you are capable of building an AI which is sufficiently close and similar that we merge with it. Then to all intents and purposes that AI is conscious as we know it.
I don’t have a strong view. But I have a view and I wrote about it in the epilogue to my last book,
because (1:09) ten years ago I wrote a chapter in in a book called Life Ascending about consciousness, and the subtitle of life ascending was was the 10 great inventions of evolution and i couldn’t possibly write a book with a subtitle like that did not include consciousness - and specifically consciousness as one of the great inventions.

1:30
LANE: It was in part because i was just curious to know more and i read more for that chapter i never worked on it but i’ve always how can anyone not be interested in the question. um and i was left with the feeling that A nobody knows, and B there are two main schools of thought out there with a big kind of skew in distribution.

One of them says oh it’s a property of matter there’s an unknown law of physics pan psychism everything is conscious the sun is conscious it’s just a matter or a rock is conscious it’s just a matter of how much
2:03
LANE: and i find that very unpersuasive, i can’t say that it’s wrong it’s just that i think we somehow can tell the difference between something that’s living and something that’s not.
and then - the other the other end is it’s a it’s an emergent property of a very complex central nervous system and i am i never quite understand what people mean by words like emergence I mean.
2:30
LANE: There are genuine examples but i think we very often tend to um use it to to plaster over our ignorance. As a biochemist the question for me then was okay it’s a concoction of a central nervous system a depolarizing neuron gives rise to a feeling to a feeling of pain or to a feeling of love or anger or whatever it may be.

So what is then a feeling in biophysical terms in the central nervous system which bit of the wiring gives rise to and I’ve never seen anyone answer that question in a way that makes sense to me. And that’s an important question to answer.”

Please notice the "ten years ago” at 1:09, it is significant because some amazing discoveries have been made in the last ten years.
Discoveries that have shattered the naive notion that consciousness is limited to our neural system - Scientists have discovered much more subtle and critically important, behavior down at the sub cellular level, all the way down into the mitochondria of individual cells.
With an evolutionary active history of some four billion years worth of experimentation and testing.

Why not check out the entire chapter.

Here Dr. Nick Lane describes the source; where the metaphorical spark; that starts the cascade; that makes us, us; is to be found.

I share extensive quotes from Dr. Nick Lane’s recent book Transformer, specifically its epilogue, “Self” — which seems to me the best street level summary of current scientific understanding regarding our physical body, as the ultimate source of our thoughts and feelings, in short our mind & soul.

Why do I believe this is important? Because, Evolution and biological realities receive too much hollow lip service, and too little detailed attention. Philosophers tend to keep it within the bubble of their thoughts. Seemingly valuing dialogue more than getting into the weeds of evolutionary biology to find out what nature & evolution has to teach us about the source of consciousness.:

Yeah, and that’s looking like it’s the key to a realistic understanding of biological consciousness.. A third way, so figure.

Also Nick was confined by Lex’s questions, and he the various interview by him I’ve listened to, I know he’s a smart guy, but I feel he’s another one that simply dismisses evolution and is more fascinating with the fireworks in our heads, than a pragmatic understanding of the self. Seems he’s about cyborg interface, so it skews the discussion. But is was the best short I could find at the time.

“Looking like” being the key words. That’s what I’m trying to get you to do, to formulate the question in a way I can say Nick is or isn’t interesting, with regards to how consciousness happens.

If, as you say, it’s looking like there is a key, then that’s exactly how interesting it is, a key, new insight. Interesting. But not a reason to stop asking all the other questions, which, as I define it, spills into philosophy. Not really interested in your opinion on that definition either.

If you are claiming to have found a fallacy in the philosophy of the hard problem, then, not interested. I don’t care much about Chalmers. I don’t need any more science to tell me his definition isn’t interesting. He’s not. Don’t need to unpack his logic.

That doesn’t one way or the other - fact remains Philosophy is more theology than science. Which is proven by their steadfast avoidance of this bottom up evolutionary understanding to how consciousness evolved.

Hand waving and insulting into meaninglessness, doesn’t take away from that reality!

And I get the feeling you still can’t figure out (or define) which key is being discussed here.
I point that out because it’s not like one key unlocks them all.
The wild thing about what Nick Lane was writing about in “SELF” is that this particular key is at the very foundational base of life. That makes it such a big deal.

That doesn’t mean an awful lot of other people still bow down to the guy like he’s a rock star. And most every essay or article I read about Consciousness is lacking this recognition of the biological origins.

What Eeva.

I’d prefer “recognize”

Okay so understand the Self and understanding the source of consciousness and the source of our gods or God, is uninteresting to you. Could have fooled me.

What I know is when I’m told I don’t know what I’m talking about - I’m going to argue, and clarify, and call in the experts I learned from, and the evidence they have shared with whoever might be interested - learning and teaching go hand in hand.

Not a fact. That’s your opinion.

Why should I be defining it? What do you want from me? To summarize his books?

I’m trying to answer your question at the bottom of your first post, which requires that I understand what you are asking. Now you are changing the question and making up stuff about what I’m interested in.

I didn’t say you don’t know what you are talking about.

I’m afraid that is a fact in way too many talks and article I’ve listened to, and read.
The embrace of panpsychism is but one example.

It’s your opinion. Simply mentioning “evolution” is not enough, - That’s simply acknowledging a vague notion that never gets beyond a simple ‘change over time’ when the reality of it is so much more amazing and complex.

Gotta get into the details to make it real.

No, I was simply curious if you could describe what you meant “key” - what kind of key? - key to what?

Should be simple.

That was in response to your preceding flippant dismissal.

Second to explain this perspective is important to me because it does offer resolution to those eternal questions. For anyone claiming to be in a good-faith search for resolving who the self is and why it matters - this is a science based approach, that should stop being dismissed.

It’s not about brain power it’s about rational, pragmatic, non-idealistic understanding, and a thinking process that reaches past the limitations of our mindscapes, to constantly touch base with actual physical biological reality.

Mind you there’s a big difference between knowledge and understanding.

The heck you don’t!
Look at how you started you last comment.

I quoted you. It’s the word you used. Post #5, in bold. You’ve done this before. You ask me what you meant.

There’s that chip on your shoulder again. I see a lack of consensus around the question of how we get from biology to consciousness, but I don’t see dismissal of proposals like Nick’s.

Sorry you see it that way.

Yeah, and that’s looking like it’s the key to a realistic understanding of biological consciousness.. A third way, so figure.

:flushed_face:
What are you totally unfamiliar with Nick Lane’s work???
If you’ve had a chance to read or listen to any of his lectures, or article, or books, you should be able to decide that based on your own intellect.

:zipper_mouth_face:

I’ll step back here, keep my commentary and feelings to myself and let Professor Nick Lane take his shot at explaining it.
Again, the entire text is better than these snippets, but if they don’t jog your interest, I haven’t got a prayer.

SELF starts at page 211

¶2 - Professor Lane: “…It might seem uncanny that whole metabolic pathways can spring into existence in this way, in the absence of genes and information, but this is what recent experiments are telling us.

There is something thermodynamically and kinetically favoured about the innermost chemistry of life.**

I find this unsettling, but that’s how it is. …”

.

¶3 - Professor Lane: “From the beginning, the flow of energy and matter through the Krebs cycle was bound to the electrical potential on membranes. Flux is movement. The electrical potential humming away on cell membranes is movement too, dancing charge, electrons and protons, the elementary particles of life.

Moving charge generates electromagnetic fields that permeate our being. And clearly, the flux of metabolism generates electromagnetic fields on cells.

Could feelings somehow be related to this dance of charge, the ephemeral states of cells?

¶4 - Professor Lane: “… The idea is pleasing, but I wouldn’t have given it any more thought but for a visit from a scientific seer, Luca Turin, a biophysicist interested in quantum biology, …"

.

¶6 - Professor Lane: “Even more intriguingly, Turin has detected a radiowave signal associated with electron transfer in respiration.

Don’t worry about the details here. The point is that these radiowave signals increase when brain areas are active, and are suppressed by anesthesia, again implying an effect on respiration. …

Even Turin admits that brains emitting radio waves sounds like the stuff of science fiction.

But it seems they do.

.

¶7- Professor Lane: “ … What next? Instead of electron transfer to oxygen being coupled to proton pumping and ATP synthesis, some proportion must hop on a xenon bridge straight to oxygen. That oxygen is presumably still bound to cytochrome oxidase at the end of the respiratory chain in the normal way, so the electrons are not escaping as free radicals.

Even so, short-circuiting the respiratory chain must affect the electrical membrane potential, which should be measurable (though these are not easy measurements to make). So … could it be that a change in mitochondrial membrane potential affects our conscious state?

.

¶8- Professor Lane: “I mentioned electromagnetic fields. We have long known that the brain generates electrical fields, which we measure in the EEG. …

Plainly the EEG is produced by changes in electrical voltage, and these changes are big enough to incriminate large networks of neurons firing in synchrony (rather than individual cells).

But these neural networks … are still composed of individual neurons, which behave in similar ways. The question is, at the cellular level, which electrical charges are involved?

The glib assumption is that charges on the cell membrane (or action potentials) are responsible.

But if Turin is right, then a big part of the answer might be mitochondrial membrane potentials.

.

¶9 Moving charge necessarily generates an electromagnetic field, and the mitochondria clearly do so – not only with the transfer of electrons to oxygen but even more dramatically in the circuit of protons across the membrane, looping from the respiratory complexes to the ATP synthase and back round. … Doug Wallace

there’s evidence that electrical fields can and do play a direct role in brain function.

If so, the key point is that the electrical fields generated by neurons do have motive force**. They are not too weak to change things physically, as long assumed.**

.

¶10 This kind of statement might have pushed the boundaries of respectable science until recently, but the extraordinary work of the developmental biologist Michael Levin and others shows that electric fields can control the development of small animals such as the flat worms known as planarians.

I suspect that twenty-first-century biology will be the biology of fields.

So, let’s take it to be possible that the electrical fields generated by mitochondria do have motive force.

What can that tell us about consciousness?

Well for a start, it might tell us why the brain is so hooked on glucose as a fuel. …

{Thereafter, another dive into metabolism, calcium flux, pyruvate dehydrogenase, Kreps cycle flux, ATP synthesis - this is stuff that powers work, constructing and transforming molecules. Resulting in varying electrical field that create a “unifying force to bind the disperate flowing molecules of a cell together to make a self with moods and feelings.”}

Plainly that powers work, but it also gives scope to the full dynamic range of mitochondrial membrane potential. To the full range of electrical fields. To the full music of the orchestra.

Until now, biology has tended to study the materials that make up the instruments.

The time has come to close our eyes and listen to the music.

I want to suggest to you that this music is the stuff of feeling, of emotion.

.

¶11 Let’s put aside multicellular organisms with their nervous systems and think about protists such as paramecium, which also generate electrical fields on their mitochondrial membranes.

What unifies the whole? What coordinates it as a ‘self’?

Once you think about electrical fields, it is hard to imagine anything else.

But then we are faced with another problem. …

Why would electrical fields in mitochondria, generated by flux through the Krebs cycle, equate to the strivings of the self? …

{Here Professor Lane shares from his experience at the lab bench, spending hours peering through his microscope at single celled paramecium, who were mirroring the same range of “marvelous and sophisticated” goal oriented behaviors expected from a much more complicated creatures.

Then he brings it back to Mitochondria, oxygen uptake, producing electrical fields, … }

What unifies the whole? What coordinates it as a ‘self’?

Once you think about electrical fields, it is hard to imagine anything else.

But then we are faced with another problem. …

Why would electrical fields in mitochondria, generated by flux through the Krebs cycle, equate to the strivings of the self? …

{To learn more you’ll want to read Nick Lane’s The Vital Question}

{Interestingly, mitochondrial membrane’s electrical potential is the same as the plasma membrane of bacteria. This relates to the primal origin of Eukaryotic cells when they engulfed a foreign germ without digesting it.

Instead, a mutual arrangement was evolved, cell provided a home and resources while the mitochondria focuses on becoming a factor to produce fuel and, it turns out, much more.}

Lane asks, “Why would electrical fields in mitochondria, generated by flux through the Krebs cycle, equate to the strivings of the self?”

{Which circles right back around to ramification from mitochondria electrical fields and potentially influencing the entire cell, and beyond, to neighboring cells.}

¶14 I have long wondered if that collapsing membrane potential ‘feels’ like something to a bacterium.

More than anything else, the humming electrical potential on the membrane betokens the living force.

And if it feels like something for a bacterium to die, its living force sucked away, …

… “All operate through much the same mechanisms, collapsing electrical membrane potential to induce death. Presumably, there must also be some ‘pre-death’ state, where the living processes are tenuous.

Beyond that, membrane potential is needed for far more than the basics of ATP synthesis and CO2 fixation. It powers the bacterial flagellum, allowing cells to move around and seek better conditions, as well as pumping all manner of things in and out of cells, maintaining their homeostasis.

Most strikingly, bacteria need their membrane potential to find their own midpoint, to divide in two and generate offspring.

Nothing in biology is more sacred than reproduction, and the simplest form of reproduction does not happen without an electrical charge on the membrane.

All these states of living and dying are linked with electromagnetic fields.

Do they all feel different?

How could they not?

Metabolism and electromagnetic fields on the membranes bounding cells are intimately entwined and intrinsically meaningful.

These are the living states of cells, the stream of consciousness in its most elementary form.”