Abstract
The traditional view of cellular computation, which focuses solely on chemical reactions, has been expanded by the recognition of bioelectrical and genomic computation, revealing a more intricate and multidimensional understanding of cell function. This paper presents the three-form computation theory, which proposes that cells compute using three distinct but interrelated forms: chemical, bioelectrical, and genomic processes. These computations are essential for the survival and adaptation of cells and are instrumental in the understanding of complex biological and cognitive functions. In particular, bioelectricity plays a central role, not only in cellular communication but also in higher cognitive processes such as consciousness, as described in Johnjoe McFadden's CEMI Field Theory and Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose's Orch-OR Theory. This paper explores the parallels between cellular computation and cognitive function, demonstrating how the principles of bioelectricity unite both fields and provide insights into the nature of life and consciousness.
Introduction: The Growing Complexity of Cellular Computation
Cells, the building blocks of life, have long been understood through the lens of chemical reactions that govern essential biological processes. However, recent advancements in biocomputation have illuminated two additional forms of cellular computation: bioelectrical and genomic. The three-form computation theory posits that these modes work together, enabling cells to sense, respond, and adapt to their environments. This concept parallels modern theories of consciousness that emphasize the role of bioelectricity and quantum processes in the brain [1][2].
The integration of bioelectricity within both cellular and cognitive computation presents a compelling framework for understanding how information processing occurs across multiple levels of biological systems. In this paper, we explore how bioelectricity underpins both cellular decision-making and cognitive processes such as consciousness, particularly through McFadden's CEMI Field Theory and Hameroff and Penrose’s Orch-OR Theory[3][4].
The Three-Form Computation Theory in Cells
The three-form computation theory suggests that cells rely on chemical, bioelectrical, and genomic processes to carry out their essential functions. These modes of computation operate synergistically, allowing cells to adapt to environmental stimuli, communicate, and regulate internal processes.
Chemical Computation: The Sequential Engine
Chemical computation refers to the sequential nature of biochemical reactions that govern cellular processes like signal transduction and metabolism. An example of this is glycolysis, where a series of enzyme-driven reactions convert glucose into pyruvate, generating ATP for cellular energy. One key reaction involves phosphofructokinase (PFK), which regulates the process based on ATP availability. This feedback mechanism is an example of how sequential computation allows cells to make decisions based on environmental cues, conserving energy when needed and ramping up metabolism during periods of energy demand[5].
Chemical computation’s sequential nature mirrors traditional computational systems, where processes must occur in a specific order. However, this form of computation alone cannot explain the complexity of cellular decision-making, which requires additional forms of information processing[6][7].
Bioelectrical Computation: The Parallel Pathway
Bioelectrical computation occurs through the movement of ions across cellular membranes, creating electrical signals that can travel rapidly and influence other cells. These signals allow for parallel computation, where multiple processes occur simultaneously. This is evident in neuronal function, where action potentials generated by ion channels enable the fast transmission of nerve signals, coordinating complex behaviours in real-time[8][9].
Bioelectrical computation is not limited to the nervous system. It is also present in processes like mitotic spindle assembly during cell division, where the simultaneous activity of multiple proteins coordinates the division of chromosomes [10]. This type of computation is analogous to parallel processing in computers, where tasks are carried out concurrently, leading to faster and more efficient outcomes [11].
The role of bioelectricity in cells forms the bridge to understanding its impact on cognitive functions. By examining bioelectricity at the cellular level, we can draw parallels with theories of consciousness, such as CEMI and Orch-OR, which suggest that bioelectrical signals play a crucial role in how the brain processes and integrates information [3][4][12].
Genomic Computation: The Functional Foundation
Genomic computation refers to the regulation of gene expression and the control of cellular processes through DNA and RNA interactions. This form of computation operates as a functional model, where specific inputs (e.g., transcription factors) lead to precise outputs (e.g., protein synthesis). Gene expression is an example of functional computation where the system’s output depends solely on the input, regardless of the sequence in which steps are carried out[1].
For instance, the activation or suppression of genes in response to environmental signals can be seen as a form of functional mapping, where the genomic system responds in predictable ways based on the stimuli received. This computational mode ensures that cells adapt appropriately to their internal and external environments, regulating processes such as cell differentiation, DNA repair, and cell cycle control[14] [15].
Bioelectricity in Theories of Consciousness
The role of bioelectricity in both cellular and cognitive computation is pivotal for understanding how biological systems integrate information. While bioelectricity in cells facilitates signal transmission and parallel processing, in the brain, it may underpin the generation of consciousness.
CEMI Field Theory: Bioelectricity as Consciousness Integration
In Johnjoe McFadden’s CEMI Field Theory, bioelectrical signals produced by the synchronized firing of neurons generate electromagnetic fields (EM fields) that integrate sensory inputs across the brain, creating a unified conscious experience. McFadden argues that these EM fields are not just passive reflections of neuronal activity; they actively influence neural firing through a feedback loop, allowing the brain to process whole ideas or "gestalts" [16][17].
In this view, the parallel processing enabled by bioelectricity within neurons mirrors the bioelectrical computation in cells. Just as bioelectric signals in cells enable rapid and coordinated responses to stimuli, in the brain, these signals allow for the integration of complex sensory information, facilitating conscious thought and volition.
The CEMI theory suggests that bioelectricity is not merely a supportive process in cognitive functions but a primary mechanism through which consciousness emerges. This idea aligns closely with the bioelectrical computation proposed in the three-form computation theory, where bioelectric signals are essential for coordinating complex cellular behaviours[16][18][19].
Orch-OR Theory: Bioelectricity in Quantum Consciousness
In contrast, Stuart Hameroff and Roger Penrose’s Orch-OR Theory presents a quantum-based model of consciousness, where quantum processes in neuronal microtubules are responsible for conscious experience. According to Orch-OR, bioelectricity is necessary for normal neuronal function, but consciousness itself arises from quantum collapses (Objective Reduction) within microtubules[20][21].
Here, bioelectricity plays a supportive role, facilitating the conditions under which quantum events can occur, but it is not the direct cause of consciousness. This contrasts with McFadden's view, where bioelectric signals generate the EM fields that create conscious awareness. In the three-form computation theory, this could be seen as analogous to genomic computation, where bioelectricity supports more deterministic, function-based processes but does not directly generate the core computational output[16][20][22].
Comparative Analysis: Bioelectricity’s Dual Role in Cells and Consciousness
Both the CEMI Field Theory and Orch-OR Theory offer models of how bioelectricity functions within cells and the brain, but they diverge in the extent to which bioelectricity is considered a primary driver of consciousness.
CEMI Field Theory argues that bioelectricity is a central player in consciousness. The theory posits that the EM fields generated by neural activity integrate sensory information and create a conscious experience, much like bioelectric signals in cells coordinate complex functions[16][19].
Orch-OR Theory, on the other hand, sees bioelectricity as a supportive process, where its primary role is to enable quantum processes that give rise to consciousness. In this model, bioelectric signals ensure that neurons function properly, but the true source of consciousness lies in the quantum realm[20][21].
The three-form computation theory situates bioelectricity as one of three interrelated computational forms that work together to drive cellular function. It provides a framework for understanding how bioelectrical processes in both cells and the brain contribute to the overall adaptability, functionality, and, potentially, the conscious experience of biological systems[12][13][22].
Conclusion: Bioelectricity as a Unifying Mechanism
The integration of bioelectricity within both cellular and cognitive functions highlights its critical role in biological systems. Whether enabling the rapid, parallel transmission of signals in cells or the generation of consciousness through EM fields in the brain, bioelectricity is a unifying mechanism that links the micro-level processes of cellular function to the macro-level processes of cognition. By combining insights from the three-form computation theory with McFadden’s CEMI theory and Orch-OR theory, we gain a deeper understanding of how biological systems integrate chemical, bioelectrical, and genomic computations to achieve both cellular adaptability and conscious awareness.
References
Levin, M. (2014). Endogenous bioelectric signaling networks: Exploiting voltage gradients for control of growth and form. Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 16, 123–154.
Tseng, A. S., & Levin, M. (2013). Cracking the bioelectric code: Probing endogenous ionic controls of pattern formation. Communicative & Integrative Biology, 6(1), e22595.
McFadden, J. (2013). The CEMI field theory: Closing the loop. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20(1-2), 153-168.
McFadden, J. (2020). Integrating information in the brain's EM field: The CEMI field theory of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1), niaa016.
Nicholls, D. G., & Ferguson, S. J. (2013). Bioenergetics 4. Academic Press.
Hille, B. (20
01). Ion channels of excitable membranes. Sinauer Associates.
Alberts, B. et al. (2015). Molecular biology of the cell (6th ed.). Garland Science.
Hodgkin, A. L., & Huxley, A. F. (1952). A quantitative description of membrane current and its application to conduction and excitation in nerve. The Journal of Physiology, 117(4), 500-544.
Byrne, J. H., & Roberts, J. L. (2004). From molecules to networks: An introduction to cellular and molecular neuroscience. Academic Press.
Mitchison, T. J., & Kirschner, M. W. (1984). Dynamic instability of microtubule growth. Nature, 312(5991), 237-242.
Bray, D. (1995). Protein molecules as computational elements in living cells. Nature, 376(6538), 307-312.
Yuste, R. (2015). From the neuron doctrine to neural networks. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(8), 487-497.
Watson, J. D. et al. (2013). Molecular biology of the gene (7th ed.). Pearson.
Ridley, A. J. (2001). Rho family proteins: coordinating cell responses. Trends in Cell Biology, 11(12), 487-493.
Alberts, B. et al. (2008). The molecular biology of the cell (5th ed.). Garland Science.
McFadden, J. (2013). The CEMI field theory: Closing the loop. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 20(1-2), 153-168.
McFadden, J. (2020). Integrating information in the brain's EM field: The CEMI field theory of consciousness. Neuroscience of Consciousness, 2020(1), niaa016.
Levin, M. (2007). Large-scale biophysics: Ion flows and regeneration. Trends in Cell Biology, 17(6), 261-270.
Blackiston, D. J., & Levin, M. (2013). Bioelectric networks in development, regeneration and cancer: Redrawing the morphogenetic field. Bioessays, 35(10), 842-852.
Hameroff, S., & Penrose, R. (2014). Consciousness in the universe: A review of the ‘Orch OR’ theory. Physics of Life Reviews, 11(1), 39-78.
Hameroff, S. (2006). The entwined mysteries of anesthesia and consciousness. Anesthesiology, 105(2), 400-412.
Friston, K. J. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127-138.
Comentarios