Book report – Le hasard et la necessite (focusing on Chapter 1, D’étranges objets)

I read and wrote a book report on Le hasard et la necessite by Jacques Lucien Monod, a renowned French molecular biologist.

 

This book explains the life sciences, especially molecular biology, using natural philosophy. Chapter 1, D’étranges objets, is an introduction that does not cover big concepts, but uses logical thinking to explain man-made, natural, and living things. The first example is an automatic calculator. The first example is an automatic calculator: the criteria for comparing man-made and natural objects are logically considered, and the calculator calculates an object and determines whether it is man-made or natural. This book didn’t make much sense the first time I read it. This is because it finds errors in places that most people don’t think about. For example, when comparing man-made and natural objects, we often make intuitive categorizations. Objects like knives and scissors are obviously man-made. But things like people and grass are natural. But calculators don’t have this intuition, so we need a logical way to categorize them. The first criteria that the author proposes is regularity and repetition. Regularity and repetitiveness are typical properties of artifacts. Since an artifact is made with an intention, many objects with that intention will be produced, and they will be produced in the same form. Therefore, artifacts have regularity and repeatability. However, this criterion is not sufficient because there are counterexamples, such as crystals, which are natural objects but also have regularity and repeatability. It also depends on whether we are looking at it from a micro or macro perspective. The author’s conclusion is that it’s impossible to make a logical distinction between artificial and natural objects. It is obviously impossible to make a judgment based on geometric shapes alone, and even if we look at performance, which is the intention, we will have disappointing results.
Why did he conclude that it is difficult to make a clear logical distinction between artifacts and natural objects, and what was the author’s intention in bringing up this topic? It was to naturally bring up the topic of life. Life has regularity and repetition. Everyone has eyes, a nose, a mouth, arms, legs, blood vessels, nerves, all of these things are regular and repeatable and make up life. Life is also created with intentionality by previous generations of life. But is life an artifact? Our intuition doesn’t allow for that. Instead, the author categorizes life differently from all other objects in the universe and considers it to be immutable and rational. Immutability is literally the property of not changing. In living things, all genes are inherited when the next generation is born. This ensures that all forms remain similar and are repeatable. Despite the complexity of the information, it’s immutable and doesn’t vary much. Purposefulness is the property of being created with an intention. For example, the eye is created with the intention of taking in an image so that it can be recalled by the brain. In this way, all organs of living things have intentionality and rationality. Of course, these two properties are necessary, but not sufficient, conditions for life, meaning that life is immutable and rational, but immutability and rationality do not make life.
In Chapter 1, the author does not make any major claims or arguments. The main focus is on artificial and natural objects. To summarize, artificial and natural objects cannot be categorized based on objective criteria, and artificial objects become natural objects and natural objects become artificial objects by using unusual objects such as life as a bridge. The author’s argument is based on a thought experiment. If a spacecraft equipped with an automatic calculator goes to a planet such as Mars and selects two random objects and calculates them using logical criteria, can it classify them as artificial or natural? If it can classify them as artificial, then the planet is home to intelligent life similar to our own. The criteria the author gave to the automatic calculator were regularity and repeatability, which are geometric properties, and rationality, which are functional and performance properties. However, after giving these criteria, he goes on to give counterexamples and concludes that an automatic calculator cannot distinguish between two arbitrary objects as man-made or natural.
I generally agree with the authors. Intuitively, we may be able to categorize artificial and natural objects, but logically, we can’t say when or where they began to exist naturally. To take an extreme example, a molecule or an atom could be an artifact if God exists, or if there is an intelligent being that can create particles. In other words, we don’t know how the universe works, or how it began, so we can’t determine what is artificial and what is natural. Our intuitive judgment is also not accurate because most of the things we judge as artifacts are made by living things, and we often judge things that cannot be made by humans, who mistakenly believe that natural things are the top of life, as artifacts. Therefore, I agree with the author’s opinion. However, I feel that the argument is lacking because it uses inductive reasoning. Of course, in science, unlike math, if the results of various experiments and thought experiments reveal a tendency, it is okay to use inductive reasoning based on that tendency. However, in the case of this book, it is not only about life sciences, but also about natural philosophy, so I think it is more logical to use deductive reasoning than inductive reasoning. The author simply sets up a few criteria, then gives examples that contradict those criteria, repeats them, and concludes that it is impossible to categorize man-made and natural objects with clear logical criteria. However, this is not an exhaustive list of criteria, so we are left with the probability that there are some logical criteria that can be used to categorize artificial and natural objects in a clear logical way. I believe that no amount of research can reveal the principles and rules of the universe. Therefore, humans who cannot discover the principles and rules of the universe cannot clearly distinguish between artificial and natural objects no matter how logical the criteria are. The dictionary definition of an artifact is a man-made object: if it can be engineered by humans, it is an artifact; otherwise, it is natural. But the question remains. If we think of life activities, reproduction, etc. as engineering, then life can be created by humans. Nowadays, we can create not only organs but also life through life science technology through artificial insemination, even if it is not reproduction. Then life becomes an artifact. In this way, we cannot distinguish between artificial and natural objects because it is unclear to what extent humans can create them and to what extent they are engineered.
At first, I didn’t understand why Chapter 1 was included in this book. The distinction between artifacts and natural objects does not seem to have much to do with molecular biology, even if it is about natural philosophy. However, after reading it three times and summarizing it, I think I understood the author’s intention. From a microscopic point of view, in the sense of molecular biology, artificial things become natural things and natural things become artificial things. Chemicals such as adrenaline and pheromones are both natural and artificial because they are produced by living organisms. The author seems to be trying to solve this philosophical error from the perspective of molecular biology.