Is Life A String of Molecules?

Molecular self-assembly is a phenomenon whereby molecules assemble themselves in certain conformations due to forces of attraction and repulsion, and when allowed to happen naturally the resulting structure is the lowest energy conformation. It's an uber-interesting research area that I wrote a paper on for my Surface Science in Catalysis and Nanotechnology module. Over and over again I came across this notion held by scientists in this field that life essentially amounted to the right molecules in the right order in the right environment. And I was disappointed. Is life is a string of molecules?

A scientist named Leroy Cronin at the University of Glasgow is working on this (rather cool) experiment to make viable Inorganic Chemical Cells, iChells as he calls them. The idea at its simplest level is to put a few basic inorganic molecules together that will combine to form larger structures by molecular self-assembly. The lower energy structures will dominate and form a cell without the smallest hint of carbon that can metabolize, move, grow and replicate like any other biological cell. These iChells in this exact form, which he calls 'Inorganic Life' do not exist yet. But if they do one day exist, then it means that all there is to life is the right molecules in the right order in the right environment. And if life made in a lab could be "conscious", then consciousness would not be some sort of magic ingredient. Cogito ergo sum. The only thing we'd know that exists for sure is molecular interaction (of fake or real molecules). Descartes would turn in his grave, and for good reason.

Enshrined in philosophy is the (unproved) notion that an idea has the highest probability of existence. I think, therefore I am. To say that the idea is a result of molecular interaction, that molecular ordering is the essence of life, is to almost destroy the sanctity of the idea. That is because the idea now has to be preceded by molecular interaction. You have to have the molecules before you can have the idea. Yet, you can't prove molecules exist. Its paradoxical plain and simple. With cogito ergo sum you could (almost) rely on your thoughts actually existing. With molecular ordering, since you cannot prove molecules exist with any degree of certainty, you cannot prove ideas exist with any degree of certitude either. And if the existence of molecules is accepted, then life is reduced to molecular ordering.

First science said we didn't have a soul; consciousness is housed in the brain. Now it says life is the right molecules, in the right place, at the right time. Is there meaning in molecular interaction? Consequently, is there a point to life? The notion that you define the meaning and purpose of your own life is empowering to an extent. However, I still find the idea of the magic and mystery of life being reduced to a string of molecules to be depressing. Honestly i'd rather the meaning of life be hilarious frivolities like 42 in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy fashion, or heck even chocolate (Siri said that, not me!). At least there's awe, wonder and an unanswered question to look forward to every morning.

Originality Mystified

"Something Borrowed" is a brilliant essay penned by Malcolm Gladwell, which I only came across yesterday evening in a crowded cafeteria over a cup of iced coffee. I call it brilliant because since I read it I could not stop thinking about the concept of originality. The essay discusses issues of plagiarism and intellectual copyright, all interesting stuff, but one phrase at the end of the essay triggered my train of thought: "chains of influence and evolution".

This phrase captures the notion that all of our thoughts, ideas and creations are influenced and inspired by thoughts, ideas and creations that we have been exposed to at some point in our lives. True that we have never been able to prove the notion of causality, that things are caused by other things, but empirical experience seems to suggest that there is a causal progression in the way humans behave for the most part. Yet, we define the word original as "a primary form or type from which varieties are derived". It seems to me that everything we think of, design, create, invent is a derivative - there is a causal chain leading to it. There seem to be no 'primary forms'. Does that mean that axiomatically nothing can really be called original?

The one exception to the nothing-is-axiomatically-original notion would be the first idea I should suppose, because that truly was a first. So that implies that there is a "God-idea" from which all other ideas are derived. So what was the first idea we ever had?

[Vocabulary] The Gettier Problem

The traditional defintion of knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB) met its refutation at the hands of Edmund Gettier in 1963. Today there are multiple cases that classify as Gettier; over time the Gettier Problem has come to stand for a particular brand of arguments that expose weaknesses in the JTB definition of Knowledge. However, Gettier himself proposed a single two-part case, part I of which will be outlined here.

Smith and Jones are both applying for the same job. Smith has been informed by the management that Jones will be hired. He also has empirical evidence that Jones has exactly ten coins in his pocket. Therefore, he believes that the person with ten coins in his pocket will be hired. The justification for Smith's belief seems reasonable too. According to the JTB definition of knowledge, the only element left to examine is the truth.

In reality, the person with ten coins in his pocket does get hired. So the belief itself concurs with what eventually happens; it is a true belief. But, it turns out that while waiting for the result, one coin fell out of Jones' pocket. Unbeknownst to Smith, he himself had ten coins in his pocket to begin with too, and just so happens that none of them fell out. Smith got the job. Smith was the guy with ten coins in his pocket who got the job.

Smith's belief undoubtedly classifies as JTB. However, Jones was the one who was to be hired in Smith's mind concurrently. With that in mind, it can't really be said that Smith "knew" who was going to get the job, can it? Therefore, we see that every justified true belief is not knowledge. A question - is all knowledge justfied true belief though?

What is Knowledge? - Part I: Definition

Epistemology is the branch of Philosophy that deals with the nature and construction of Knowledge. Theories of Knowledge, which comprise the field of epistemology, attempt to uncover the meaning of this term that we use almost in an offhand manner in day to day conversations. “I knew you were going to say that!” is the common response to an expected answer. Of course we all know that the Sun will rise tomorrow. The question really is what does it mean to know something? And what is knowledge?

Knowledge as Justified True Belief (JTB)
The definition of Knowledge that has survived most successfully in my opinion is that of Knowledge as Justified True Belief. There are three conditions for anything then to classify as knowledge. Firstly, I must believe it. Secondly it must be true. Lastly, I must be able to justify my belief. There are major problems with this definition from my perspective. Deciding on whether something is true or not attains a high degree of subjectivity in certain regions of knowledge construction and getting beyond the belief stage is difficult. An example would be deciding whether there is too much salt in a dish or a greenish-blue colour is really green or blue. You would need to establish stringent and specific standards so as to objectively define a truth, such as concentration of salt and the wavelength of light reflected in the above two cases. These axiomatic standards are arbitrary for the most part and would only serve to complicate our body of knowledge if we set out to define standards in order to be able to answer every subjective question.

The second major problem with knowledge as JTB is deciding on what justification counts as sufficient. Justification in society very often comes in a historical context – this is how it has been happening over years, so this is how it will happen now/tomorrow. This mode of argumentation is not airtight. One black swan and the claim that all swans are white falls flat. Inductive justifications are not black and white, but shades of grey – probabilistic. Another famous justification – because he said so. Even if he has college degrees and experience to back his claim, he can still be wrong. It is a fallacious appeal to authority (despite its prevalence in society). So what degree (pun unintended) of justification counts as enough? Another arbitrary standard to answer the question?

Lets say we define our standards and now adopt the definition of knowledge as JTB. The problem is that it still fails as an airtight classification of knowledge/Knowledge (a capital K denotes absolute Knowledge and a lowercase k every other kind). How? Two words – Gettier Problem.

A Defintion of Knowledge?
A few of us over millenia have tried to define knowledge. It is possibly an indication of the difficulty of this endeavour that most of us presume to know what it is. If Socrates were alive and went on a journey across the world asking every person for a workable definition, I can say with reasonable conviction that he would find not one answer he could not decimate. Given that, I don't suppose to be able to come up with a satisfactory definition. In fact, I do not think that one definition of knowledge is possible. Knowledge is like ice cream, and there's more than one flavour of that around; in fact, I counted 53 flavours in Ben and Jerry's ice cream tub selection alone. Why do I say that? Substantiation for that claim in Part II after looking at the nature of knowledge...

(Then again I can I really claim to know there are 53 flavours there? Not really. I believe there are 53 commercially available flavours of Ben and Jerry's ice cream tubs because that's what I counted on the website - only as accurate as my math and their representation.)

Artistic Interpretation - Part I

Coffee? Art? Both? Neither? Demon Eyes? Face Mask? Flower? Random lines of foam in coffee?

The recent claims regarding hidden anatomical meaning in Michangelo’s work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel lead to questions regarding the interpretation of artistic creations.

Is it possible to interpret a work of art in a fashion identical to its intended meaning?

Do we over-analyse art and extrapolate meanings unintended by its creator?

Is there even a “correct” interpretation for artistic creations, a “Truth” of sorts?

This two-part written creation explores all of these issues. The argument put forth here is that artistic creations have two primary types of truths – the truth of the creator and the truths of the interpreters. It is further suggested that these truths are non-identical and “the interpretation” of artistic creations propounded in society is actually a consensus knowledge approach imbibing elements of both types of truths. A comparison of the two categories of truth is also incorporated.

---------

Scientific theories claiming that the human mind searches for patterns in everything it perceives have been on the table for decades. Daily experience provides compelling evidence for their veracity; every fifth person walking down the street looks like someone familiar; science itself is based on the premise that the workings of the world follow certain basic laws – a premise that often leads to theories with more exceptions that followers, as those who have studied science in depth will have experienced. If one is to accept the theory that human beings are inclined to see continuity and familiarity in perceived data, then it can be extrapolated to the perception and interpretation of artistic creations. If this line of thought is accepted, then this would certainly predispose us to see patterns that are non-existent or unintended in works of art. The question it raises is whether such artistic interpretation detracts from “the truth” or adds more dimensions to it.

The key difference between generic epistemological explorations and artistic interpretations is that art is a human creation while most epistemological endeavours focus on objects not created by humans, such as the universe (if indeed they have a creator at all). Given this crucial difference, the argument put forth here would be that there is categorically no absolute truth with regards to these creations – there is the truth of the creator and the truths of interpreters. This argument in no way alludes to the existence of an overarching absolute truth for non-human creations; it merely says that there is no such truth for artistic creations.

The Truth of the Creator. Every work of art means something specific to its creator – it is an expression of his thoughts, emotions, opinions and/or perspective. When we interpret (the truths of the interpreters) Shakespeare’s “Hamlet” or Leonardo da Vinci’s “Vitruvian Man” we seem to assume that we are trying to reach the meaning intended by the artist. I would, however, argue that it is not possible to see anything in the same light as another person – and the same logic applies for uncovering intended meaning in works of art.

So why is it not possible to see something in exactly the same light as another person? Firstly, we all base our knowledge on belief systems comprised not only of assumptions but also of experiences. Evoking Kuhnian paradigms would suggest that every person has a different set of assumptions and therefore looks at things in a unique light. That doesn’t seem like the most convincing argument, however. So consider that belief systems and paradigms evolve with experience. Not many would dispute that no two people have exactly identical experiences. Therefore, even if you start with the same set of assumptions, the eventual paradigm can differ. As Bertrand Russell expressed in his “The Problems of Philosophy”, the table kept in the centre of a room will appear slightly different to each observer, depending upon the position of the observer and the angle of light reflecting off the table. It is the same object being observed, but the process of observation results in an image unique to each observer. In the same manner, the object here is the work of art and the image is the interpretation formulated by the observer. The question is whether the object is superior to the image – or is the image equally “true”?

In the Bertrand Russell example the distinction between object and image is not all that obscure, making argumentation for or against superiority of the object far more substantive. When it comes to artistic interpretation, however, the question has a lot of subtle layers, not necessarily visible at first glance. The table in this case would be the work of art or the creation itself. The problem arises because while we all know what a table is and ought to be, we cannot really claim the same certitude for an artistic creation. Does the essence of the existence of the piece contain the “truth of the creator”? Or is the work simply a vehicle, much like words are in the process of communication – they mean whatever we want them to mean? The answer to this issue weighs heavily in the comparison of the truth of the creator and the truths of the interpreters.

[Vocabulary] Thomas Kuhn, Paradigms and the Notion of Epistemological Progress

A Collective Paradigm

[Allegations of philosophyxiation being intellectually elitist have prompted this series which is intended to explain the vocabulary used here – a dictionary for the language of philosophyxiation.]

---

As all students of philosophy will tell you, an oft recited story is that of the epistemological underpinnings of the philosophy of the renowned French mathematician and philosopher Rene Descartes. Descartes came to the conclusion that all the things he thought he knew were in reality epistemologically suspect. Therefore, the only way to get to true knowledge was to throw everything he thought he knew out the window and start afresh. This is the story that leads to the famous “cogito ergo sum” (I think, therefore I am), but that is irrelevant in this context. The reason for recounting this story is the implicit recognition of the fact that we do not construct knowledge within a vacuum. As Descartes realised, it is simply not possible to formulate anything epistemologically significant without making a few assumptions. This realisation is the basis of Thomas Kuhn’s idea of paradigms.

Paradigm Shifts

A paradigm is essentially the set of assumptions within which we construct knowledge. It is the “box” within which we live. That is not to say that it is static or singular. Every piece of knowledge we construct within our individual paradigm is based on some of the assumptions of the paradigm – like many small boxes within the larger box. In his “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Kuhn argues that revolutions in Science occur when one or more of the assumptions constituting the paradigm are falsified, instigating the adoption of a new paradigm in lieu of the falsified paradigm. These paradigm shifts seem to be indicative of epistemological progress from Kuhn’s point of view. An example of such a paradigm shift would be the validation of the Copernican model which falsified the assumption that the Earth was the centre of the Solar System.

The above is a simplified and brief interpretation of Thomas Kuhn’s view of progress in epistemology. While his ideas of paradigms and paradigm shifts appear to be insightful and applicable, his claim of paradigm shifts as progress is problematic. This is because the comparison of paradigms with regards to accuracy is only possible if that comparison is carried out in a vacuum. Since we cannot, by Kuhn’s own admission, reach that intellectual vacuum, we cannot “know” whether the new paradigm brings us any closer to “the truth” than the one it replaced. And that is already assuming paradigms have a hierarchy and that correspondent Knowledge exists. So paradigm shifts and revolutions in thought can at best be regarded as change; claiming that they represent progress involves a number of assumptions that do not hold up very well under close scrutiny.

---

Disclaimer – All the ideas presented here are personal interpretations of the ideas of certain philosophers, as opposed to THE ideas of said philosophers.

Who Am I. Really.

Identity.

Who you are.

What defines you.

A quest for some. A stupid question for others. And always a tool for those who are aware of its power. Identity takes many forms – pride, honour, patriotism – and in every form it has brought people together and pushed them apart since time immemorial. I would argue that it is really identity and the feeling of inclusion and exclusion that it creates that gives strongholds like religion their power. If this argument were to hold water, this one word would probably be responsible for the largest share of bloodshed caused by a single motivating factor. Quite a thought.

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant divided qualities into two primary classes – qualities things inherently possess and qualities we ascribe to things. The inherent qualities comprise the things in themselves, or “das ding an sich”. We then superpose certain qualities on objects (and people by extension); these superposed qualities are subjective in nature according to Kant. It can then be postulated that the perceived differences in the identity of things are due to this second layer of subjective ascriptions.

According to Kantian theories, there is this fundamental identity things possess. Of course the question of how we can distinguish these traits from any subjective additions, if at all, still remains.

Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy is characterized by his idea of a paradigm. A paradigm is a set of assumptions within which we view the world and construct all of our knowledge (knowledge as opposed to Knowledge). Revolutions in epistemology (in any field essentially) occur due to a changing of paradigms. Therefore paradigms aren’t fixed. However, they are not easily modified either. A paradigmatic upheaval has serious implications as all knowledge constructed within the previous paradigm has to be re-assessed, and discarded if it does not comply with the new set of assumptions. It is an idea that applies well when applied to figures like Albert Einstein who could not accept the quantum revolution despite having instigated new paradigmatic eras themselves.

So Kuhn’s paradigms make it impossible for there to be an unbiased anything. Assumptions are bias. The absence of assumptions is also the absence of any kind of knowledge. For even the simplest forms of deductive knowledge, assumptions are necessary. If this is now superposed with the two-layer Kantian identity idea, the first layer is something we can never get to. It would require an unbiased view, which Kuhn says we cannot have.

The wider implication of this is that while there is a dichotomy between ‘actual’ and perceived as regards identity, actual has no real practical meaning. Who you are or a thing is actually is a pointless question because you cannot know. It’s like asking what a quantum object is like in the absence of the observer- it could be nothing, everything, something entirely different – you just will never know. Practically all identity there is, is perceived.

It might seem logically consistent to conclude that you are what you think you are. However, it isn’t entirely accurate the way I see it. That conclusion would presuppose a certain freedom to formulate an independent opinion of anything. Shakespeare pointed out centuries ago (via Julius Caesar) that we see ourselves through other people’s eyes. Our perceptions are a product of society and by extension so are we, to a very large extent. If Robinson Crusoe claimed after years of solitary living that he was who he thought he was, it wouldn’t still be believable because again the freedom to form an independent perception was absent. Survival was his motivation as well as his compulsion.

There is an apparent pointlessness in trying to see things in black and white when wearing rose coloured glasses. And there is that same pointlessness in trying to search for what something really is or who you really are. The way I see it, while you don’t have the freedom to define yourself in any which way you desire, you still have a very large say. The challenge is to not choose to do or not do things because of something or someone, but to do them regardless of what something or someone wants you to do. Because it is really in the absence of external influences that you can find/define your identity.