Hacker News Reader

Comment by dwaltrip | Hacker News Reader

Don’t beat around the bush. Are you implying life is supernaturally sustained? That would be quite the claim.

If not, then the history of science strongly suggests we can eventually learn the mechanisms of life and intelligence and then find a way to imperfectly yet sufficiently reimplement them.

View on HN

Are you suggesting life is supernaturally sustained?

No. I am simply suggesting that creating life (and intelligence) from inert materals may involve more than "just chemistry". In the same way that lead can not be turned into gold by "just chemistry".

I welcome knowledge and proof to the contrary but thus far, there is none.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07289-x

We have lots of evidence of how the processes of life are chemically driven: Photosynthesis captures energy from sunlight, metabolism of sugars produces ATP which is then used in a variety of ways by the cell's proteins, the DNA->RNA->Protein pipeline builds proteins from the sequences of base pairs stored in a cell's DNA, and DNA copying enzymes pass that information from generation to generation. Since you probably already know about that stuff, I guess I must be misunderstanding what kind of proof you are looking for. What sort of discovery would count as "proof" to you?

What sort of discovery would count as "proof" to you?

The ultimate proof is actually doing it. Start with nothing but inert materials and produce a new, unique form of living organism using "just chemistry".

I'm not saying it can't be done, I am saying that thus far, it hasn't been done. And the reason it hasn't been done might be because "just chemistry" is an overly simplistic description of what is needed to actually achieve it.

But feel free to prove me wrong.

Gold can be made from lead (and other inputs) using knowledge that is generally classified as nuclear physics. It’s not very practical or economical, so no one does it — but it can be done. It’s true that this isn’t “chemistry”. Not sure if you were making a deeper point.

Perhaps to truly understand life we need to look deeply at physics, geology, fluid dynamics, and many other specialized fields, in addition to chemistry. And maybe we will need some new discoveries in these areas than have not yet been made. Is that all?

I don’t think there is really much contention between that and the idea that life is “just chemistry”. I would bet most people saying that are totally fine with what I wrote above and are likely just trying to be concise with their words.

Unless you mean more than you are plainly saying, this seems like splitting hairs about the taxonomy of scientific understanding. Understanding is understanding, regardless of how you categorize it.

The only deeper point is that labeling it "just chemistry" may be a gross over simplification of what is required to actually achieve it.

Ok, fair enough. I was pushing back so strongly as it seemed you might have been implying that there is a certain "magic" we can never investigate or understand, which I find to be a very unjustified and regressive position.

Much of our progress in medicine, science, and technology has been made due to the idea that the world around operates in an orderly fashion and can be investigated and understood.

let's say he believes that. even then his belief would be as understandable & justifiable as yours. Wagging a finger and saying history of science suggest this and that is just that, belief. Just because something happened before you think it'll happen again and again. I do sympathize with your pov and even agree with it, but let's not beat around the bush as you say and let's just call this what our povs are: faith in science yet to come. Ours is no more righteous than the other.

EDIT: some grammar

I very strongly disagree that we can't label some beliefs as more compelling and reflective of reality than others.

I am happy to admit that doing a good job of differentiating is tricky business indeed, and that we all make many blatant errors and are prone to developing distorted ways of seeing things.

Nonetheless, I do believe that humanity has acquired some real understanding of the world and will continue to do so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com