Michael Armenia art

What is life?
by Michael Armenia

In recent years several intense debates have centered on human rights issues which together are forming a critical turning point in the evolution of human history. Because the debates on topics such as Roe vs. Wade and stem cell research have become extremely polarized into religious and secular views, the polemics have been naturally pro or con. The core of the debate, however, is still largely undefined: what is life? In my mind, there needs to be a shift in our focus from the poles of obstinate opinions towards a theosophical understanding of consciousness; thus, narrowing the gray area defining when life really begins. I accept that it may not be possible to completely isolate religious and secular views in our society. With a growing realization that everything in our universe is interconnected, it would be wise not to force the exclusion of any aspect in our understanding of reality, including a theological perspective. Nevertheless, in a country that vows to maintain separation between church and state, our sociology and governing laws should be free of religious influence as much as possible.

In 1943, one of the world's most renown physicists and founding fathers of quantum physics, Erwin Schrödinger, lectured at Trinity College in Dublin. In these lectures and his book What is Life?, Schrödinger attempts to identify the physical conditions that could give rise to life, the bio-chemical beginnings at the molecular level. He identifies the necessary component processes, namely replication and, to a lesser extent, metabolism. In 1977, Freeman Dyson augmented Schrödinger's work with a lecture and subsequent publication called The Origins of Life. Dyson builds upon Schrödinger's work emphasizing more the importance of metabolism and asking questions that hadn't been addressed by Schrödinger himself: What is the origin of life? Replication? Metabolism? Or, both? Both authors admittedly and most humbly addressed the fact that they were not experts in the field of biology or chemistry. Nevertheless, in their apologies for extending into other branches of science, their discourses should still have a significant impact on our philosophy today. They recognized that determining life's origins involves the synthesis of several scientific disciplines. It just happens to be these physicists who have encouraged this more holistic thinking.

One question that neither Schrödinger or Dyson have really addressed in these lectures is - what is consciousness? Schrödinger does discuss this, however, in Mind and Matter. He writes, "The reason why our sentient, percipient and thinking ego is met nowhere within our scientific world picture can easily be indicated in seven words: because it is itself that world picture." Schrödinger's way out of this eye-looking-at-itself paradox is found in the Upanishads - he says, "multiplicity is only apparent, in truth there is only one mind." Later he writes, "...our science - Greek Science - is based on objectivations, whereby it has cut itself off from an adequate understanding of the Subject of Cognizance, of the mind. But I do believe that this is precisely the point where our present way of thinking does need to be amended, perhaps by a bit of blood-transfusion from Eastern thought." In my article, by life I mean to imply biological matter that possesses a consciousness.

I equate consciousness with what many people call a soul. In some religious faiths, the soul is a distinct quality attached to an individual and permanent unlike its biological shell. In others, there is no individual soul that can be transmigrated or reincarnated. The Buddhist doctrine of Anatta (soul-lessness) is an example of the latter. Whatever the case, it stands to reason that there is some point at which a biological life acquires consciousness, a soul takes corporeal form, be it proto-birth or re-birth. Therefore, when I use the word soul, I mean to imply consciousness which is present in biological matter.

Several years ago I attended a Zen Buddhist retreat at Throssel Hole Priory in England when a discussion with some of the monks reminded me of something I had studied before. The Reverend was relating an idea that life manifests when the universal life-force that flows through all living things reaches a "critical mass" in conjunction with a complex organization of matter. This made sudden sense to me and I wondered if artificial intelligence, being able to simulate brain activity, could be host to such a consciousness. This called to mind the future evolution of life as presented in The Physics of Immortality, by physicist Frank J. Tipler. Here Tipler suggests that in order for life in our solar system to survive the extinction of our sun, it would have to evolve into an inorganic life-form capable of long periods of interstellar travel taking the form of an artificial intelligence automaton, an earlier idea of the mathematician John Von Neumann. This brainchild consists of information processed at such a speed that a program (software) may simulate human thinking; and, by integrating such a program with a non-organic form (hardware), this program could become a self-replicating entity. Would such an entity be an example of life - an intelligence that can sustain and replicate itself? It certainly can be mapped to Schrödinger's model of replication and metabolism in which nucleic acids are responsible for replication (what Dyson calls software) and proteins are responsible for metabolism (what Dyson calls hardware).

But, is a self-replicating entity necessarily conscious? Does it necessarily have a soul? Aye, there's the rub? Or, should it be? After all, many people consider lower species of animals such as cats and dogs to be devoid of soul (except perhaps primates and dolphins). It naturally would follow then that plants, even lower forms of life, are devoid of soul and are not believed to be self-aware. Nevertheless, we consider them alive! And, do these soul-less creatures have rights? Well, yes. There are organizations like the SPCA and PETA. And, the Endangered Species Act protects certain plants as well as animals which are on the border of extinction. However, I'm not sure that the motive in case of the Endangered Species Act is one of respect and compassion for other living creatures as much as it is an act of preservation in our (human) best interest. If and when it is realized that all forms of life have consciousness, or a soul, then ideally all life should acquire the same level of respect and compassion.

At the time of my retreat mentioned above, I was a vegetarian. Ironically, it was the ideas presented there, the Buddhist perspective in favor of vegetarianism and the precept "do not kill", that in subsequent years encouraged me to be omnivorous once again. By selecting to eat lower life forms such as plants, a Buddhist shows respect to higher life forms by not doing them harm and preventing unnecessary death. This is indeed admirable and was part of my former philosophy. What we then discussed was the example of taking an antibiotic to fend off the infection of an illness that might have detrimental effects. This process 'kills' an organism - it takes a life, in fact, an awful lot of lives. But let's face it, we have to keep our priorities straight and self-preservation is first and foremost. With a great deal of contemplation though, the lesson I learned is simply to respect all life and be grateful that other life forms die so that I may live. Only life begets life! And, because every action has karmic consequences, what matters is not so much that I eat beans to save a chicken, rather that my heart is filled with compassion and my thoughts of respect are real towards what I consume to stay alive. It is then my responsibility to respect and protect all other life as well. In this case, my mere good intentions are actions with relevant consequences, hopefully good ones at that.

In order to finally bring these ideas into the context of current human rights issues, I would like to place my opinions on the table as food for thought. And, I do this with utmost respect to those who may have opposing views. Remember though, that I am trying to set aside the polemics on issues like abortion and stem cell research. I want to engender public interest in concentrating our studies on the actual emergence of consciousness. Only then after much reflection, discourse and research, should we return to polemics and debate the origin of consciousness instead.

Where does life begin? In my belief, the universal life-force does manifest itself in a complex organization of matter. How and when this occurs is not yet understood. Does a human embryo possess consciousness? I don't believe it does. It is far more alive than Schrödinger's cellular-biological models of chromosomes and proteins, but it's organization is not complex enough to posses a consciousness. Is a fetus conscious? Well, I believe at some point it is indeed. Exactly where, we do not know. It is generally understood that the human brain is fully formed at the end of the first trimester. Therefore, let's assume for the sake of this argument that, at this stage of development, the neural network of the fetus is organized enough for consciousness to manifest. Then it is safe to say, it is a life worthy of protection by the law. If this is so, then neither abortion of the fetus prior to that point, or harvesting stem cells after the early stages of cell division should be any cause for debate. (For the record, I am only in favor of abortion if it is in the best interest of all concerned: the mother as well as the unborn fetus.)

We must turn to a more theosophical approach, holistically harnessing the sciences, in determining at what point, or range of points, life can possibly enter a mass of biological material. Does it happen at the level of Schrödinger's proteins and nucleic acids? At the level of a single cell, a fertilized egg or an embryo? If life were assumed to be already present at the time of conception (if the twinkle was in God's eye instead of the biological father's), then our debates take a nasty turn. This would be an ideology of religious dogma and as soon as that enters into the political arena, we encounter that troublesome mixture of church and state. It frightens me that we are in that arena now with the US government's position on funding stem cell research. If we truly have separation of church and state in the USA, then some of these debates should fizzle out. More focus on defining consciousness should give us, if not a line, a region of demarcation, whereby life can be protected by law if that is indeed what we want.