Viruses, and The Future of Biophysics
Schematic of Dr. Montagnier's revolutionary experiment. Can we identify specific physical contexts, whether on a microscopic or cosmic scale, which are causally connected to the generation of life?
Viruses Show Us the Future!
Ian Brinkley, 10/24/14
This is a response to the extraordinary LaRouchePAC weekly report of 10/22/14 presented by Liona Fian-Chang, Megan Beets and Ben Deniston. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F9vcf-6-ws
In an essay which I wrote in 2012 on the subject of the then highly acclaimed “cones” diagram, I proposed a certain kind conceptual treatment of the subject of the development of biospheric systems which was somewhat different than the one being discussed in connection with that diagram. In this essay I proposed a method of conceiving of systemic biological phenomena from the standpoint of the notion of intention. I attempted to correlate certain features of human economic development as it arises from the intention to accomplish a particular objective for society with the functioning of the biosphere as it is conceived of as arising out of the “intention” of the biosphere to achieve it’s own purpose. The subject of “recursion” was brought up from this standpoint. It was conceived that any disruption of the processes which the biosphere had set into motion to fulfill it’s own intention would be corrected, and, if necessary, corrected perhaps through the generation of a new functionally identical process which could compensate for the loss of the particular capability in question. From this standpoint, the recursive process of the development of new bacterial strains which are resistant to antibiotic substances and the correlated phenomenon with respect to certain new fungi, also resistant to traditional eradication methods, was referenced.(Fn.1) A somewhat wild but necessary consequence of the above hypothesis, was a theory which held that if it were possible to precisely identify the precise effect of a particular organism/biological-process on the biosphere as a whole, then it could be conceived that if mankind were to artificially produce such an effect himself, through means which were perhaps entirely different that the means which the biosphere itself implemented, then it could be possible to overcome the problem of compensative recursion, because, if we admit the notion of intention in the biosphere as elaborated before, then the biosphere would have no more need to produce such organisms/processes to fulfil that intention! It would be necessary, of course, that mankind could mimic the effects precisely enough, and on a large enough scale for this to be demonstrated.
As I watched the weekly report last night, I found myself recalling this old essay of mine but in a new and exciting way to the incredibly provocative presentation by the team. The sheer scale and extent of viral operation in the biosphere as was elaborated in in the discussion convinced me that, indeed, viruses are one of the primary instruments by which the biosphere carries out it’s intention. I had always wondered, since that essay, how the biosphere would carry out it’s intentions- What instruments does it use? What facets of it’s own creation are implemented in its incessant egress? that is to say- what parts of the biosphere play functionally critical roles in the pursuit of it’s intention? is it all life, or only some? In other words again: are there features of the biosphere which we would correlate with the notorious “D-waste” component of the human economic process? Perhaps the most gnawing of all the questions arising out of this investigation was the following: To what extent does the biosphere directly utilize those parts of the universe which we generally term “non-living”, not as a source of fuel as organism do or something like that, but directly, even as directly as we would imagine the mind of man directly utilizing a dead tool for his purposes (and not just the living matter immediately under his control known as the body). Or, just as the above concept would impel us to view the biosphere as directly controlling at least those features of life which it finds useful to his purposes. Again: Can, and to what extent does the biosphere directly utilize “dead matter” for its purposes without any direct contact with a living organism? (not, for example, akin to the way in which Vernadsky identifies the biosphere to change abiotic matter through the biogenic migration of atoms)
As I watched the presentation, it became quite clear that the biosphere does indeed directly utilizes abiotic matter for its purposes without necessarily coming into direct contact with this matter through the action of an organism. I say this for multiple reasons. First, because there exists a well known ambiguity concerning whether or not viruses should be considered living. Indeed it seems very possible that viruses are not at all living entities per se. (On the question of living entities per se, I do believe that the concept, which our researchers (you) have elaborated on of the living organism as an individual unity, characterised by a self-bounded physical space-time singularity, is indeed the kind of concept which we must make referential use of in asking the question as to whether a thing is “alive” or not.)(Fn.2) It is possible to conceive that viruses are purely “dead” collections of molecules not fundamentally different from any other kind of conceivable complex molecular structure. In this case, we would need to conceive of a virus as an aggregation of physical material, the behavior of which is governed solely by the organization of the molecular and chemical forces which adhere between the constituent parts of the virus’s structure, combined with the other physical forces which happen to prevail in it’s immediate environment. If we take this to be the proper conception of viruses, we are led to wonder at the incredible precision with which the essentially deterministic/mechanical operations of the virus are enabled to induce such specific changes in the functioning of the cell/organism, which itself is extremely complex. If this be the case, as seems likely, we would be led to admit that the operation of viruses seems to represent the upper limit of the potential capability to alter the functioning of an organism from the standpoint of classical physics/biochemistry etc.- that is to say, without attempting to induce changes in the living organism on the basis of engaging it as a living organism.(Fn.3) Thus it is incredibly striking to conceive of such precise and multifarious changes which result in the living organism (the cell for instance and even the biosphere as a whole) from the purely mechanical interaction of something like a virus with the machinery of the organism. If changes in living processes of this magnitude can be induced through mechanical means, imagine the kinds of changes which can be induced on the basis of interactions which are determined by the living principle itself. This would also be a testament to the vulnerability of the machinery of the cell to changes (good or bad) induced by such physical agents as viruses. It is seen from this that the potential for evolutionary changes resulting from a utilization of this mechanism could prove extremely rapid and easy to unleash.
The second reason as to why it must be that the biosphere directly controls the the domain of the seemingly non-living is the provided by the implications of the “Crystal Cave” discovery. The crystal-cave discovery itself is enough to prove that the biosphere controls the domain of the “non-living” in the way specified above! I should note that this is proven whether or not we take viruses to be living or not. For, if we admit that viruses are living, we must admit that living matter was created in an isolated volcanic pocket despite the fact that it was unable to come into contact with any other living organism. We would conclude then that such living matter was created by the principle of life itself (or the biosphere)(Fn.4) as opposed to being just a material offshoot of an individual biological organism which already existed. This is, of course, not to say at all that the living organisms in the cave (if we call the viruses that) were created by a lucky stroke of chance variations within an otherwise dead soup of chemicals and energy- that would be absurd. In fact, we still adhere to the notion that life only comes from life even if we admit the idea that the viruses in this cave are living, but in this case, we say that life created life with non-life as opposed to creating life with life. And thus, in this case too, we admit that life still came from life. On the other hand, if we admit the alternative, that the viruses found inside the isolated cave are not living, then we still have proof -if ever something could be said to constitute proof- that the biosphere does indeed directly control the material domain of the non-living without direct contact. A contradiction may arise: “Well if you admit that viruses are not alive then this constitutes no proof of this idea whatsoever.” We would respond to such a proffer by referencing the above elaborated characteristic of astronomical mechanical precision, amidst the unfathomable complexity of the cellular machinery, which viruses exhibit. Remember, viruses must be conceived of as instruments, of the most precise design, which are intended to be utilized in the process of the anti-entropic development of the universe, specifically in the domain of living processes- The weekly’s elaboration of biological utilization of viruses and many more large bodies of scientific findings make this conclusion inescapable to any sane person. The idea that someone would propose the alternative to this conclusion, that the viruses in this isolated cave formed themselves as chance outcomes of otherwise indifferent mechanical forces, is about as absurd as if someone were to uncover advanced computer processor chips in a similarly isolated volcanic pocket, and, upon examining them, conclude that their existence had be accounted for on the basis of a chance conglomeration of dead material within the cave at some point. This claim would be even more absurd if it were to be uncovered that the particular computer processors that they found in the ancient volcanic pocket were the same model processors which had been designed for computers which were then in use by human society! This is one big question I have regarding the discovery- Perhaps you can tell me Liona, or even email me the report which you received this information from: Were the viruses found in the cave the same as viruses which are already known as currently existing elsewhere on the planet and influencing biological processes to any extent or in any way? If so, then we have a further confirmation of the biosphere’s capability to influence the abiotic domain without the direct kinetic influence of a living organism as was thought to be necessary before.
When considering these ideas, we are forcefully reminded of the work of Dr. Luc Montagnier. (Here is a nice video on Montangnier's breakthrough experimental findings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvSOR0hvHrk) It must be elaborated the way in which these above mentioned considerations synergistically combine with the work of Dr. Luc Montagnier. At first glance, Montagnier’s experiments seem to demonstrate that, within certain physical contexts, certain forms of physical organization which are specific to living processes can be transmitted, communicated, across distances from one situation which contains life (or has been recently associated with living processes and the particular biological structure in question) to another situation which contained only abiotic elements. It was demonstrated that, given this physical context, the situation containing only abiotic elements was capable (given the right sequence of heat transfers) of creating the very biological structure which was in the other situation at a distance away. Montagnier himself has provided a working hypothesis to explain the incredible phenomenon, namely the existence of nanostructures inside of the initial water situation which correspond to the biological structures originally placed into the water and which are capable of causing other water solutions to mimic this kind of structuralization through some sort of transmission process, and thence to allow the water structures created in the new location to assemble the biological structures which originally corresponded to the nano-structures in the original sample.(Fn.5)
Setting any specific hypothesis to the side for now, the important thing to consider is the way in which a uniquely biological form of matter was enabled to be generated in a location in which no direct (Fn.6) contact with any living organisms had taken place. We see then a direct proof, again, of the way in which life can control the domain of the abiotic without the need for direct contact. We are obliged however to consider the need for the presence of the first solution, which had already been affected by the life process directly, to be present in, and a component of, the physical context within which life was able to control the abiotic domain in this way. Indeed, this entices us to attempt to identify, with specificity, the way in which the “life only from life” principle now takes on new meaning. How is this principle maintained even in the context of an abandonment of the idea that the living organism must directly come in contact with that which it wishes to affect? How must we reconceptualize the principle of life itself if we are to maintain this principle despite all of demonstrations which require us to abandon old ideas? How is it that life created the living with non-life as opposed to creating the living with life?
Someone familiar is called to mind in this discussion: Kepler. The concept which Kepler presents in his New Astronomy, of a species which controls the motions of the planets despite the fact that the species itself is an immaterial principle, is a concept which, unsurprisingly, seems to come to the front of our mind in the course of discussing these matters.We recall that one characteristic of Kepler’s immaterial species was it’s dependence on the existence of a particular physical context which would allow the action of the species to be made manifest. (In this case, the existence of a material body.) Are we not now engaged in an investigation of the same quality? Yes! The theme of our investigation can be expressed at this point in the following question: Considering the evidence provided by Montagnier and the crystal cave of the formation of biological structures within abiotic material through indirect means, what are the kinds of physical contexts which are required for life to become the determining factor in the material/energetic organization of physical systems? Don't start thinking about the so-called “Goldilocks Zones” you have heard about before! Such investigations are very useful, but I am talking about something more general here. I am referring not only to the physical contexts which allow for life and life products to manifest, but of those physical contexts which cause life and its products to manifest. A useful point of comparison can be made with respect to human economies. Take the case of an attempted analysis of the physical context required for the existence of any aspect of the economy. Take something simple, a spoon. What is the physical context which enables the spoon to exist? Is it the kitchenware store? Well, that is one part, but it goes further, since, of course, the spoon had to be made somewhere, and that particular spoon producing company had to receive many goods from elsewhere still, and all of those places had to receive many goods from many other places, and so on. Pretty soon, one realizes that the entire global economy (and even all of human history considering the scientific and cultural basis upon which that economy functions) must be taken into account to accurately portray the characteristics of the physical context which allowed the spoon to exist. Now, transfer your investigative skills to the biosphere and life on earth as we know it. Too often do we find cases of neurotic lunatics masquerading as scientists who attempt to define a limited set of physical conditions which life requires for its existence. A certain size of planet in the “goldilocks zone”, water, a presence of carbon and some other elements, maybe a splatter of electricity, and that’s all folks. It reminds one of those people who believe that food comes from the grocery store. If we abandon such byproducts of minimalist/reductionist thinking and decide to take an honest look at what is required for life to exist, we are obliged to seek out those other kinds of physical contexts within which the necessary causes of any particular living phenomena can be located- the biosphere included. Once again, we emphasize the findings of Montagnier, in the light of Kepler’s work, as a conceptual point of reference which we can maintain throughout the course of this investigation. We seek those kinds of biologically efficient cosmic physical contexts, perhaps even extending beyond the galaxy, which encompass our earth and beyond and account for the generation of life and life systems in the universe, which Montagnier’s work has already proven we can gain insight into through work in the laboratory.
When the time comes at which the essential conceptual elements referenced here are enabled to take on a concretized expression in the domain of scientific practice, we can be sure that the effects will be revolutionary in the extreme. Let us examine the kinds of changes in human practice which we can forecast as a result of this kind of epistemological shift.
Obviously, as mentioned above, the search for locations in our universe where we might expect to find living beings would be radically changed. As mentioned above, the emphasis would shift from a search for those physical contexts which allow life to occur, to those which cause life to occur. We would seek out those physical contexts which corresponded to those which we would come to know (with greater and greater degrees of certainty) from our laboratory experiments which are capable of facilitating the process by which the principle of life becomes the dominant factor in the behavior of physical systems, processes which we conceive of as mimicking the processes on a cosmic scale which are responsible for these effects generally. As we mentioned above, these physical contexts would most certainly be much larger than the individual planet which living organisms existed on and would therefore be perhaps much easier to locate than small planets in the “goldilocks zone” which we scour the cosmic sky for, and most of which you cannot even see, even with advanced instrumentation. The search for life in the universe would become easier as a result of this shift to a principled basis.
In addition to this consequence, we could also engage in studies of the physical contexts which determine life on our own earth. These contexts most likely exist on a galactic and a super galactic level. Thus, by determining the areas which are delimited by these physical contexts, in conjunction with the knowledge of the relative position of the earth in this context, and in conjunction with the knowledge obtained through a study of life “communication” within similar contexts artificially created in the man made laboratory, we could, perhaps, even identify areas within our Earth’s own biologically efficient physical context as potential “hot spots” so to speak within which another planetary system could be playing a role similar that of the second vial of water in Montaigne's experiment, and our Earth, which of course we already know to be replete with life (if we can impeach Obama), could be acting, similarly, as the first vial of water, “transmitting” the factors which bring life into existence on another unknown planets yet to be discovered, but now known to be likely existing in one of the “hot spots”. Of course, it is also conceivable that we could just be the “el cheapo” vial 2 copy of some other, much more advanced planetary life system! Whatever the case, we certainly wouldn't want to assume that our Earth would be the only lonely living planet in a special Galactic physical context. Obviously, in order for this investigation to be at all effective we would need to saturate the nearby cosmos with advanced observational equipment so as to most accurately situate our own planet within the Galaxy and beyond.
These considerations also relate directly to what was mentioned above concerning the different qualities of interactions which biological organisms are capable of participating in, interactions which are not reducible to their mechanical expression due to the fact that they engage a higher principle than exists within the conceptual domain of mechanical causation. This consideration contains, obviously, a strong bearing on the study of the way in which biological communication takes place, especially at the level of the cell, where, in the wash of complex physical interactions, it might be easy to lose sight of the fact that these interactions are not the only determining source of cellular communication and interrelation. Other qualities of interactions whose mechanical characteristics are either manifested as paradoxical or impossibly complex, yet whose efficacy remains efficient, remain there to be discovered as cases of interactions which take place on the basis of a higher order causality. The implications of developing a scientific method for finding and systematizing (if possible) such a class of interactions are nothing less than revolutionary. As I write, I am reminded of Lyn’s insistence on the way in which the principles of the very large, and the principles of the very small both correspond to a common resolving principle. Indeed, it would seem that there could be no better way to inform our studies of microbiological communication and reproduction than to examine the biologically efficient physical contexts in the cosmic domain, the existence of which the living processes on earth depend absolutely. A mastery of the principles by which life is generated, communicated, and maintained on the basis of the mediation of these galactic contexts will certainly have many reverberating effects in the domain of cellular research. The inverse would seem to be true as well: Any scientific breakthrough in the domain of cellular communication and reproduction which is on the level of a recognition of the aforementioned higher forms of interaction, will most certainly be reflected in the progress of investigation into the principles of biologically efficient cosmic physical contexts.
Next, it is very likely that even semi-large biological systems themselves create certain biologically efficient physical contexts of this type as well. These contexts, because of the limitations of their size could perhaps not affect changes in the abiotic domain to an extent beyond the formation of new viruses. The reason I bring this up is because it may be necessary to consider the nesting effect which the galactic contexts may have on the earth, that is to say, that one context may foster the development of a particular bio-system, which, in turn, acts as a context itself, leading to the generation of other forms of life. This knowledge would be quite relevant to the issue discussed next.
Another new and exciting application of an understanding and eventual mastery of these principles would be the development of solar system scale or even galactic scale infrastructure- expressing a platform determined by an understanding of these principles. Again, the weekly report demonstrated, beyond any doubt, that the effect of the action viruses on the biosphere as a whole is massive. The effect on human life is also massive. Considering everything said so far in this report, it seems to follow quite naturally that, as mankind increases his understanding of these principles, and their correlated physical contexts, which cause the abiotic domain to become organized according to the requirements of living processes, that mankind would use this knowledge to his benefit. What if we could create a form of infrastructure which was capable of encapsulating our earth in an artificially created biologically efficient physical context the effects of which were to facilitate the development, on a global scale, of a particular virus which we had medically designed to give everyone a gene which essentially eliminated cancer? Perhaps we could tune such infrastructure to create generate any virus we wanted, or conversely, destroy or deactivate any virus which was harmful. Perhaps we could generate viruses which destroy the pests which demolish food crops, effectively eliminating the need for pesticides. Perhaps we could do this with any species which we didn't like. Perhaps we could eliminate all parasites (a “D-waste” component of the biosphere if I ever knew one) like mosquitos, ticks, and even those super scary parasites which crawl into your body and eat you from the inside until you die. Perhaps we could eliminate them all. Perhaps we could develop viruses which cover the planet and infect every major food crop and splice yield-enhancing genes into the DNA of our food supply plants. Perhaps we could develop infrastructure to shield us from the effects of those biologically efficient physical contexts which were causing effects which were harmful to our species.
As a final note to end on, I believe the issue of the “unification of physics” is touched on here. After all, if we admit that certain abiotic structures and physical contexts can change the universe in ways which we thought that only living organism’s could do before, what does this say about the fundamental ontological character of those very abiotic entities? Does not life only come from life? Does not life on Earth the come from life in the Galaxy? Perhaps those people who were so concerned with finding goldilocks planets in search of life, were actually looking past living phenomena which was right before their eyes the whole time. What is the strict criteria by which we define life and non-life in light of the efficiency of these contexts? How might we be able to use those concretely identified special physical contexts in which life becomes the rule to demonstrate something fundamental, something from which the isolated physical tendencies involved can be derived and shown to be nothing but a limiting case, a constrained projection, of the real principle which the human mind accepts, even without fully understanding, as true?
1.)I do hypothesis that this kind of compensative recursion is more more common in more simple forms of life. In this connection we would also be obliged to recognize that there is not an unlimited capability on the part of the Biosphere for compensation in this respect, (at least on the scale of the life process on earth). Indeed, the destruction of certain physical processes which are involved in the biosphere’s activity can be considered irreparable and fatal to the entire system if destroyed. We would imagine that the prevalence of this “decisive”, or foundational, quality of process would also be correlated with an increase of complexity, and that, thus, the phenomenon of compensative recursion would be less identifiable in cases of more complex organisms and processes.
2.)This of does not negate the possibility that something can be living despite the fact that it isn't alive, for if something is said to be determined, in all of its characteristics, by a living principle, then perhaps we could indeed say that it was living, despite not being alive. The familiar expression of “expresses a higher principle” points to the clarification of the distinction which I am making here- would we call a planet in the solar system of Kepler “alive”, no, but we could perhaps call it “living” (based on the way in which these terms have been distinguished here). We would call a planet living only if we would in fact call the Solar System, or alternatively, the intention governing the solar system, “alive”. I know that some would do so.)
3.)To clarify my meaning here, take an example of a computer, which, as we know, is not a living organism, - based on the criteria we referenced above, it is not “alive”. If my computer were to start doing something that I didn't want it to do, or, if I wanted the computer to change its functioning in the way I wanted, I would engage the computer for what it is (an electro/mechanical device)- I would push the proper keys or perhaps even fiddle with some cables, but I would certainly never engage the computer as if it were a conscious entity like you or I. I would never engage the computer for the purposes of inducing it to do what I wanted in the same way I would engage a human, or a dog, or even a plant to do what I wanted. A different kind of engagement of these higher forms of the universe are required precisely because they represent entities which are “alive”. They are not simply complicated mechanical systems, another element is present in them, which in fact is “them”. Conversely, if I wanted to induce changes in the behavior of another human being, I would interact with them in a way entirely different from the interaction I have with my computer- poking people with your finger is an acceptable practice of human interaction only in a very limited number of circumstances.
4.)It should be clarified the extent to which The Biosphere should be considered as the principle of life itself. Obviously, life is a universal principle- it exists everywhere and certainly has expression outside of our earth, perhaps even in the form of other human civilizations and biospheres on distant planets. It seems to be of particular scientific use however to attribute to the life processes of earth and its immediate vicinity a certain self bounded quality with a corresponding unified intention and consequent historical development- the term for this concept is The Biosphere. “The Biosphere”, thus, as a term denoting the concept of the unified processes of life development on earth and all of its implications, should thus be seen as meaning the the principle of life itself, as that principle is expressed in the self bounded process of intentional development which has taken hold on this earth and in the immediate vicinity. I would use a simple analogy, just as a single person is to humanity, so it the biosphere to life. This should clarify at at least what I intend when using these terms in this document.
5.) I personally can not see how Montagnier’s hypothesis is feasible. I say this because it is evident that in the case of any structure which is constructed around a seed-mold, the structure will always be larger than the seed-mold itself (unless the seed-mold is hollow and you are building a structure off of the seed-mold’s interior). In the case of Montagnier’s hypothesis, the seed-mold would be the DNA, and the structure constructed around it is the water nano-structure. As we know, Montagnier ran the water through a filtration process of fine enough sieve to remove all of the DNA from the water. If the filters were too fine to let the DNA seed-mold through, then it would seem obvious that the larger nano-structures which would be build around that DNA seed-mold would also not be able to get through. It could be said that the nano-structures have components to them, that they can break apart in order to go through the filter and then reassemble themselves again after passing through. But this seems unlikely considering not only the difficulty in conceiving of a way in which the constituent nano-structure elements would know how to reassemble, but also the fact that, even considering the most likely candidate of an explanation as to how this would happen- the idea that because of the unique characteristics of each part of the biological structure around which the nano-structure constructed itself, that after the constituent parts of the nano-structure separate they would come back together in a way which matches their original configuration because of the uniqueness of each part of the nano-structure itself, so, like a puzzle putting itself together, there is only one correct way in which it reassembles. This explanation does not seem believable considering the fact that DNA is a highly repetitive molecule, with only a small number of nucleotide combinations. In response to this it could be said that the components of the nano-structures encompassed multiple base pair portions of the DNA strand and that thus, they all were unique. Still, even given this, I cannot imagine how a dissociated nano-structure which corresponded to a multiple base pair length of DNA would know what other component to connect with.
6.)That is to say, without touching, without the kind of direct contact which living organisms are usually thought to require in order to effect anything else