Recently scientists have found that cephalopods (the family that contains the octopus) can recode their RNA. RNA molecules have the privilege of esta… - Michael S. Gazzaniga

Recently, researchers captured an unbelievable picture of a small group of photons as waves and another group behaving as particles at the same time.14 Although the idea of complementarity is now established in physics, it is not widely seen as a possible foundational idea for thinking about the mind/brain explanatory gap. I think it should be, and first want to look at how physics came to accept its seemingly puzzling reality. Following its acceptance in physics, the idea of complementarity may prove itself to be key to thinking about biology, and about the mind/brain gap in particular.

Alzheimer’s disease, which is associated with the production and accumulation of amyloid-β in the brain. That means he has serious neural damage all over the brain. While for the past twenty years or so amyloid has been considered the “cause” of Alzheimer’s, there is recent evidence against that hypothesis, and others are being entertained.1 At any rate, the disease results in the slow destruction of the brain, commencing particularly with the loss of neurons in the entorhinal cortex and the hippocampus, resulting in short-term memory loss. The disease can become so debilitating that it can completely reshape Grandpa’s personality, transforming him from a lively and caring person into a listless shell of his former self. Yet, though he may not recognize me, he is still cognizant of social niceties and shakes my hand. He may wander off, but he will still feel fear when confused and lost, and anger when frustrated. His conscious experience of the world is brought to him through whatever operational neural circuitry continues to function, and as he loses function, it becomes more restricted. The contents of that conscious experience most likely are odd, very different from those of the normal brain or his past self. As a result, odd behavior follows.

Barbieri chides that “natural selection is the long-term result of molecular copying and would be the sole mechanism of evolution if copying were the sole basic mechanism of life.”15 But it isn’t. While genes can be their own template and copy themselves, proteins cannot. Proteins cannot be made by copying other proteins. The tricky thing is that only molecules that can copy can be inherited, so the information about how to make the proteins had to come from the genes. Barbieri notes that the outstanding feature of the very early protein makers “was the ability to ensure a specific correspondence between genes and proteins, because without it there would be no biological specificity, and without specificity there would be no heredity and no reproduction. Life, as we know it, simply would not exist without a specific correspondence between genes and proteins.”16