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.

[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.)