<Biology – Table of Contents>

Cosmic Mind of the Macrocosm Reflected in the Microcosm

In the creation story of the Vishnu Purāṇa, the first thing to manifest at the beginning of our cosmic cycle is cosmic intelligence.  From this cosmic intelligence emanates the individual intelligences of all existing entities in the universe.  In men and women it manifests as human intelligence, the human mind.  But it also appears as the intelligent influence in all of nature’s kingdoms, visible and invisible.  What goes on in a single biological cell – its power to adapt to changing circumstances and environments, its refined technology, and its construction of proteins and DNA molecules – goes far beyond human understanding even today, let alone human power of engineering.

According to theosophy the cosmic intellect is the sum total of all divine and spiritual intelligences.  The beginning of a new evolutionary cycle on whatever scale – take the “creation” of the earth as an example – is the reawakening of these hosts of intelligences.  This endless multitude of intelligence beings forms in its hierarchic structure on all levels of existence the intelligent core of all that lives.  In other words, the macrocosmic intelligence which guides the birth and processes of the universe is reflected on a microcosmic scale in each individual being.

H. P. Blavatsky said in her article “Kosmic Mind” (1890):

Occultism tells us that every atom . . . is a little universe in itself; and that every organ and cell in the human body is endowed with a brain of its own, with memory, therefore, experience and discriminative powers.  The idea of Universal Life composed of individual atomic lives is one of the oldest teachings of esoteric philosophy. . . . If plants can be shown to have nerves and sensations and instinct (but another word for consciousness), why not allow the same in the cells of the human body? Science divides matter into organic and inorganic bodies, only because it rejects the idea of absolute life and a life‑principle as an entity . . . [[Collected Writings 12:134]]

Blavatsky later wrote that, thanks to the science of physiology, modern science stands on the threshold of discovering that consciousness is universal.  Now, more than a century later, science has passed that threshold, as we shall show in a number of examples.

Not so long ago scientists denied consciousness and intelligence to simple organisms such as the amoebae.  Today, thanks to research using modern technology, we know that even these simple organisms have their strategies of attack and defense and are able to react variously to outward impulses.  They can perceive differences or changes in their environment and act accordingly.  Therefore they need sense perception and, more importantly, a “mind” to judge impulses of various kinds, combine them, and then stimulate their bodies to perform an adequate reaction.   While they don’t have sense organs like ours, nevertheless they do have organelles with analogous functions.  They are at least as intelligent as rather complex computer software, but must also have a reason to choose between one thing and another.  In other words, they seem to have their likes and dislikes, which are themselves forms of consciousness.  Likes and dislikes have also been discovered in plants.  We can measure physiological reactions within plant cells to a “telepathic” perception of human emotions, as has been extensively discussed in The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, among many other works.  The famous inventor Thomas Edison believed that even atoms possessed a certain measure of intelligence.

All this relates to the personal intelligence or consciousness of cells, plants, and organisms in general.  But there are expressions of consciousness within these same organisms which go far beyond their personal powers, such as to the extremely complex processes of organic chemistry within our cells and bodies.  Chemist Michael J. Behe in Darwin’s Black Box (1996) gives many examples of extremely complicated chemical processes in nature, with emphasis on those in the human body.  One example is the series of processes which take place from the moment a “light unit” or photon hits the eye’s retina.  I summarize very briefly and incompletely: within a picosecond a molecule called cis-retinal changes into trans-retinal — no chemical change, but a change in spatial structure of the molecule.  This in turn changes a protein that is naturally present within the retina cells.  This protein has now different chemical properties, and attaches itself to another protein — which loses a part of itself, which has a function in energy handling.  Some other changes follow.  Molecules are cut in half, causing channels of electric particles to be closed.  This creates an electric imbalance, which is transported through a nerve to the brain.  But this is not all.  If it were, a cell of the eye’s retina could be used only once.  In reality a equally complex and intelligent series of processes restores the balance, and brings the cell back to its original chemical condition.  Of course this restoring process is not just the first process in reverse, but follows its own intricate path.

Altogether many molecules are made and broken down.  A lot has happened since the cell received the first photon and was made ready to receive the next.  Who could still maintain that the essence of such a cell is not intelligence?  This is only one photon hitting one cell.  There are scores of such cells, some for black and white perception, others for color perception.  And how do the brain cells that receive those millions of unspecified impulses recombine them into an image which our consciousness can comprehend?

Our consciousness not only receives the impulses, but is able to interpret their meaning.  Moreover, our consciousness is able to match information from different senses: both by sight and touch we can recognize that an object is round; by sight, smell, taste, or touch alone we can recognize a strawberry for a strawberry.  None of these senses will tell us that it is an orange.  Still, we know that both are edible fruits.  Written text seen by the eyes contains for the consciousness almost the same information as when heard.  How this is possible is still a mystery for science, a mystery that can only be solved if we recognize that sensory and intelligent discrimination and consciousness are inherent qualities of all matter, or rather the other way round: that what we call matter represents “crystallized” phases of consciousness-intelligence.  If the subtle forces of nature such as intelligence, consciousness, and life were fundamentally different in essence from matter, bridging the gap between them could not be explained.

When the cell recognizes a source of light, it can move in the direction of that source, but not merely automatically.  It can also make choices and move from one source of equal quality and intensity to another.  Cells can also move towards other cells and can make choices as to the path they follow if there are several possibilities.  Albrecht-Buehler’s conclusion is that cells most probably communicate through their power of light wave perception, and are giving off signals in the form of infrared pulses that can be perceived by the other cells.  This, then, would be the way in which they locate their proper position within the bodies of more complex organisms.  The movement seems, in reaction to what the centrioles  or “eyes” of the cell perceive, to be guided from the centrosome, the “brain” of the cell, via a radial array of unbranched microtubules or “nerves,” connecting the centrosome with the cellular microplasts or “musculature” contained in the cortex of the cell.

The most remarkable fact is that the cell is able to interpret the incoming information, to order and integrate countless unforeseeable signals, and then purposely act within a certain limit of choice.  Therefore a measure of intelligence is needed.  Apparently the organ of intelligence, from which all organization of movement is implemented, is the centrosome, “one of the most mysterious parts of the cell,” as Albrecht-Buehler states.  The centrosome is not only the bearer of information about the morphology of the cell, but can, according to Albrecht-Buehler, be regarded as the “brain” of the cell, because it is probably the cellular data integration system.  The implication is that cells are much more than mere automata, reacting to chemical stimuli as programmed by the genetic code, and possess a part, in their own humble way, of the cosmic principle of intelligence.  The intelligence of cells also implies that the classical picture is turned upside down: instead of genes and chemical processes governing the whereabouts of the cell, molecules and their genes would, in the words of Albrecht-Buehler “be the ‘collaborators’ or even ‘slaves’ of the life functions of the cells.”  The genes, then, can be compared to a library, storing all necessary physical information.  In any case, the idea of cells having perception and intelligence, choice, and therefore a “will” and consciousness, is in harmony with the ancient teachings of the omnipresence of consciousness and all other cosmic principles.

Our conclusion is that from the theosophical viewpoint, it is not DNA or even the nucleus which forms the essence of the cell or of life, but the “life-atom” or soul, which has its particular focal point in the physical aspect of the cell.  Through this focal point the soul guides all processes of the cell, and perhaps adjusts it to its needs.  Returning to the Viṣ∆u Purāṇa, we note that cosmic intelligence in its lower aspect is divisive, i.e. manifesting itself in innumerable forms of expression, but in its higher aspect it is non-divisive. i.e., it knows that the apparent separation of phenomena is an illusion.  Buddhism teaches that the supreme realization is that separateness is an illusion and that all things are interdependent and in essence One.  If we apply this teaching to centrosomes, shouldn’t we conclude that their spiritual core is intelligence which knows itself in its higher aspect united with the larger functional whole of which it is a part — in this case, the whole cell, which in turn is part of a physical body?  Humans, plants, and animals in their turn each take part in the still larger whole of the earth, etc.  Evolution in nature is no more and no less than the ever continuing cyclic unfolding of cosmic mind.

Michael J.  Denton writes in Nature’s Destiny (1998) about his view that everything in the universe fits into a preordained plan that makes life on this planet, and especially that of humans, possible.  He calls it the biocentricity of the universe.  He mentions many physical and chemical conditions, for example, the percentage of oxygen in the air.  A little bit less and fire and the combustive processes necessary for life would not be possible.  A little more oxygen and even the tropical forest would spontaneously catch fire.  In either case, little would remain of life on earth as we know it.  Another example is water.  Water is only transparent in a very small wavelength area.  “By chance” this narrow frequency band coincides with the wavelengths our eyes can perceive, and with the narrow band of visible light which the sun emanates.  Also the wavelengths that plants need for photosynthesis are confined within these limits.  If the properties of the sun and water were not perfectly attuned, water would not be transparent.  In such water photosynthesis, and especially vegetable life in the seas, would be impossible.  It could not be that a different transparent fluid than water would fill the seas of the earth, because there exists in known chemistry no other fluid which combined all the properties which are necessary for carbon-based life.  Thus he fills his book with examples of seeming coincidences which would make the whole system collapse if they were just a little different.

A skeptical mind can object that this book is an example of how to reason toward a a presupposition.  It makes the assumption credible, but it proves nothing.  You never know whether life could possibly have been entirely different.  Yet one is impressed by the enormous amount of arguments that are available that point to an intelligence and inevitable coherence of all facets of life, including the mineral earth and the solar system — in fact the whole universe.  Nothing points to blind chance.  Denton’s book reaches much further even than James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, which states that the earth as a whole shows kinship in its processes with a living organism.  But in his writings Lovelock seems to reject purpose and all-over intelligence in nature, and still tries to explain his Gaia as the result of a Darwinian evolutionary model.

Michael Behe in Darwin’s Black Box uses many examples of the complexity of biochemical processes to plead for “design” in nature.  In that case it is easy to jump to the conclusion that there must be a designer, creator, or God.  But that conclusion does not help us if that God finds “Him”self somewhere outside or above us, and we will never be able to realize how he does what he does.  If, on the other hand, cosmic intelligence (as well as cosmic recognition of beauty and cosmic desire) is inherent in every object, however large or small, including ourselves, then it is in principle possible for humankind to comprehend everything within our manifested universe with its thinking and feeling mind.

The Darwinian model of chance modifications of physical matter alone, followed by natural selection, is inadequate to satisfy our modern feelings of awe towards nature.  The more we know, the more amazing nature is.  This dominant scientific theory does not solve the problem, and neither does the mainstream Christian God-the-Creator model.  Because Who has created that unbelievably intelligent God?  And if there were a Super-God, Who created Him?  How can a god who himself essentially differs in nature from his creation bring such a creation into being?  The omnipresence of intelligence as the inherent characteristic of all that exists in the cosmos, manifesting in infinite sequences of cycles, can explain the intelligent complexity of nature.

Addendum:

Although centrosomes are not required for mitosis or survival of the cell, they are required for survival of the organism. Acentrosomal cells lack radial arrays of astral microtubules. They are also defective in spindle positioning and in ability to establish a central localization site in cytokinesis. The function of centrosome in this context is hypothesized to ensure the fidelity of cell division as it is not necessary but greatly increases the efficacy. Some cell types arrest in the following cell cycle when centrosomes are absent. This is not a universal phenomenon.

When the nematode C. elegans egg is fertilized the sperm delivers a pair of centrioles. These centrioles will form the centrosomes which will direct the first cell division of the zygote and this will determine its polarity. It is not yet clear whether the role of the centrosome in polarity determination is microtubule dependent or independent.

Centrosome Genome

Research in 2006^[7] indicates that centrosomes may have their own genome, previously known only in nuclei, mitochondria and chloroplasts. Unlike the latter, it is RNA-based rather than DNA-based, and apparently includes an RNA sequence capable of duplicating the centrosome genome. The putative centrosome genome RNA sequences were purified from surf clam eggs, were found in “few to no” other places in the cell, and do not appear in existing genome databases.

The existence of nucleotides associated with the centrosome remains controversial. Many studies have investigated whether nucleotides associate with the centrosome with varying results.

The Centrosome

The centrosome is

• located in the cytoplasm attached to the outside of the nucleus.
• It is duplicated during S phase of the cell cycle.
• Just before mitosis, the two centrosomes move apart until they are on opposite sides of the nucleus.
• As mitosis proceeds, microtubules grow out from each centrosome with their plus ends growing toward the metaphase plate. These clusters of microtubules are called spindle fibers.

The photo (courtesy of Tim Mitchison) shows microtubules growing in vitro from an isolated centrosome. The centrosome was supplied with a mixture of alpha and beta tubulin monomers. These spontaneously assembled into microtubules only in the presence of centrosomes.

Spindle fibers have three destinations:

• Some attach to one kinetochore of a dyad with those growing from the opposite centrosome binding to the other kinetochore of that dyad.
• Some bind to the arms of the chromosomes.
• Still others continue growing from the two centrosomes until they extend between each other in a region of overlap.

All three groups of spindle fibers participate in

• the assembly of the chromosomes at the metaphase plate at metaphase. Proposed mechanism (the diagram shows only 1 and 2):

1. Microtubules attached to opposite sides of the dyad shrink or grow until they are of equal length.
2. Microtubules motors attached to the kinetochores move them

• toward the minus end of shrinking microtubules (a dynein);
• toward the plus end of lengthening microtubules (a kinesin).

1. The chromosome arms use a different kinesin to move to the metaphase plate.

• the separation of the chromosomes at anaphase.
• The sister kinetochores separate and, carrying their attached chromatid,
• move along the microtubules powered by minus-end motors, dyneins, while the microtubules themselves shorten (probably at both ends).
• The overlapping spindle fibers move past each other (pushing the poles farther apart) powered by plus-end motors, the “bipolar” kinesins.
• In this way the sister chromatids end up at opposite poles.

Other Functions of Centrosomes

In addition to their role in spindle formation, centrosomes play other important roles in animal cells:

• signaling that it is o.k. to proceed to cytokinesis. Destruction of both centrosomes with a laser beam prevents cytokinesis even if mitosis has been completed normally.
• signaling that it is o.k. for the daughter cells to begin another round of the cell cycle; specifically to duplicate their chromosomes in the next S phase. Destruction of one centrosome with a laser beam still permits cytokinesis but the daughter cells fail to enter a new S phase.
• Segregating signaling molecules (e.g., mRNAs) so that they pass into only one of the two daughter cells produced by mitosis. In this way, the two daughter cells can enter different pathways of differentiation even though they contain identical genomes. [Link to further discussion.]
• In at least some developing neurons, the position of the centrosome establishes the point at which the axon will grow out.

The Centrosome and the Centrioles

ANIMAL CELL CENTROSOME: The centrosome, also called the “microtubule organizing center”, is an area in the cell where microtubles are produced. Within an animal cell centrosome there is a pair of small organelles, the centrioles, each made up of a ring of nine groups of microtubules. There are three fused microtubules in each group. The two centrioles are arranged such that one is perpendicular to the other.

During animal cell division, the centrosome divides and the centrioles replicate (make new copies). The result is two centrosomes, each with its own pair of centrioles. The two centrosomes move to opposite ends of the nucleus, and from each centrosome, microtubules grow into a “spindle” which is responsible for separating replicated chromosomes into the two daughter cells.

PLANT CELL CENTROSOME: Plant cells have centrosomes that function much like animal cell centrosomes. However, unlike centrosomes in animal cells, they do not have centrioles.