explore, observe, question. Everything. Incessantly.

..."There will always be more questions than answers"...
Showing posts with label Metaphysics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Metaphysics. Show all posts

Friday, February 24, 2012

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.

Friday, March 6, 2009

(IR)Rationalization


I've been thinking of a good enough topic to start off philosophyxiation. Today when i read another blog i stumbled upon, it struck me. I'm a diehard cynic when it comes to things that are associated with "consensus". Consensus knowledge strikes me as a very irrational definition of knowledge, if knowledge can be irrational at all! So in keeping with the cynical tradition the first topic will be God. A large percentage of people think Philo is all about God and religion. When I go to bookstores the Philo section is filled with religious books. Imagine passing off faith for knowledge; It's preposterous.

Defining God-
The term God here refers to the supernatural creator and perhaps overseer of the universe/universes (for proponents of the Multiverse theory). God needn't represent, a being; The concept simply represents a higher power.

How to Prove God Exists...
I] The Cosmological Argument
Thomas Aquinas' Argument for 'A First Sustaining Cause':
1 A contingent being exists.
2 There is a cause for the existence of the contingent being
3 Said cause lies outside the contingent being
4 The cause can take the form of other contingent beings or a non-contingent being
5 But contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account of the existence of all contingent beings
6 This necesitates the existence of a contingent being, ie, God.

II] The Ontological Argument
(ontological arguments are a priori, ie, they stem from largely non-empirical sources)
This argument comes in numerous versions but in essence it says something like:
A supremely perfect being who lacks existence, wouldn't really be supremely perfect. Since, the idea of God is "perfect", God has to exist (Descartes' 5th Meditation). 

III] The Teleological Argument
Popularly known as the argument from design. This argument represents God as the intelligent designer who has designed the universe we inhabit. The basic argument is that the degree of complexity we see in the universe could not have been arrived at coincidentally. There is a purpose and creator behind all that we see around us and that creator is what the idea of "God" represents. (Coincidentally, the multiverse theory that came up earlier is something of a "scientific solution" to the intelligent design question...)

The three arguments mentioned above are the three mainstream arguments for the existence of God. Of course the world we inhabit is rarely simple, and these arguments are a few of many that exist and even these arguments themselves have varied versions and interpretations. 

All the arguments seen above have flaws that would be obvious to most. These flaws would probably be the subject of another post. For now, I'd like to meander to the end of tis post by defining the epistemological stances on the issue of the existence of God. (Just in case- epistemology=the study of the nature and construction of knowledge. Its one of the 5 major divisions of philosophy and clearly my favourite:) )

>Theism- The belief that God exists and that the existence of God can be proven
>Atheism- The denial of the existence of God along with the belief that the non-existence of God can be proven.
>Agnosticism- A neutral stance. Agnostics believe that a concrete epistemological proof for the existence or non-existence of God is not possible. Although as Richard Dawkins rightly pointed out in "The God Delusion", it isn't really possible to stand right on the very thin line. We agnostics are either theist-agnostics or atheist-agnostics. 

With all the socially cultivated paradigms that are all around, this topic always makes for the most colourful discussions... Not always a good thing if, like me, you've found black to be your one colour...