Cook's Synthetic Life

Synthetic Life: lifeforms created from the synthesis of non-living chemicals.

How does this above definition differ from "organic" life?

Well, that may very well be a difficult question, considering the processes behind the science. For instance, if a ribosome constructs a living organism by joining a protein with an acid (DNA or RNA) and lipid, which are each non-living chemicals, isn't the lifeform synthetic? It does indeed seem to be. But perhaps we really are getting ahead of ourselves. First we must bring into focus how Jeff Cook looks at this process; after all, it is his claim to have already successfully synthesized a variety of new species from non-living chemicals.

Now, many have asked Mr. Cook after viewing his Synthetic Life video demonstrations, could the effect in the videos simply be due to surface tension from a simple chemical reaction?

The "surface tension" comment is generally from a physicist perspective, and the comment, "a simple chemical reaction," really just falls out of the scientific realm entirely. What exactly is a "simple" chemical reaction? One might think a covalent bond between two atoms is rather simple. Or perhaps throwing sulphur into a bowl of water might be simple. But such questions cannot fully be answered without first explaining the sliding scale approach to the study of science Mr. Cook takes with this.

If you would kindly refer now to Cook's "Scientific Spectrum" image to the right, you have a glipse of the various studies that leads Mr. Cook from pure mathematics through various scientific studies, ending with theology. While mathematics and theology are not technically considered sciences, as they do not follow the scientific method, one may understand that Mr. Cook sees the two connected from opposite ends by the sciences.

From the top of the list downward mathematics becomes less of a factor in the study. However, it is Cook's understanding that this is due mainly to the more complicated processes involved as ones studies downward. For instance, while an algorithm could represent the psychological behavior of a dog drooling to the sound of a bell, it becomes a much more complicated algorithm involving two dogs or more, which is a social behavior. Take that equation deeper to a philosophical approach, such as to why dogs exist in the first place (or that they indeed do exist) and the complexity of the algorithm just shot through the roof. The final straw might be an algorithm that links the ringing of the bell and the dog drolling in relation with whether or not dogs have souls and go to heaven, much less whether or not there is such a thing as a soul or whether or not heaven exists and where it is located. Yet, at the top of the list things can be simplified easily down to the most basic of calculations, such as 1+1=2.

Since our human understanding is not yet capable to delve into theology from a provable mathematical standpoint, mathematicians tend to stay more toward the top of this scale rather than the bottom if they want to have any success in their endeavors. Jeff Cook is not one of these mathematicians however. His approach in the development of synthetic lifeforms actually encompassed them all to some extent, including the mathematical approach to genetic encoding (which will be added to the site in time) all the way down to the largescale theologistics at play in his experiments.

The following pages though will not include the entirety of his approach other than a brief explanation of the areas of studies discussed.

The first four fields of study listed in the image each deal with non-living matter or processes, mainly ruled by a primary governing law of the universe: entropy. The second four fields of study listed each deal with life, mainly ruled by what some refer to as negative entropy. The third four fields of study deal with something else altogether: consciousness. So, if one were to be looking for balance between entropy and negative entropy in Cook's study, wherein falls consciousness?

The whole concept could likely be drawn back to the doctrine of Vitalism. What is this, you may ask? Well, it's the belief that the "spark" given to living organisms (as opposed to non-living organisms...uh) is separate from electro-chemical or physicochemical reactions. Vitalism is the belief that the energy put into life is actually the soul or "élan vital," which means vital spark. It is said that this concept came crushing down the moment a clever man more than a century ago synthesized the first organic compound in history: Urea ((NH_2)_2CO. It is said that the discoverer was so excited upon his accomplishment that he ran through town at 3 AM, shouting through the streets, "I made piss! I made piss!" and then ended up in the psych ward for the remainder of his years claiming he was the Second Coming.

Um...well actually, I just made all that up. And...ahem.

In any case, Urea actually was the first bodily fluid to be artifically synthetized by a scientist; that was no lie. And it was at that point when scientists really jumped out of the realm of Chemistry and right into the realm of Diminutive Biology (Mr. Cook's category of science that includes Molecular Biology--whereas, Expositive Biology would include the studies of Marine Biology, Botany and the like). Indeed, the synthesis of Urea was the beginning of the science of Synthetic Life, from piss to consciousness.

But again, where does consciousness fall into this? Isn't consciousness just the intricacy of neural-networks in the brain?

Yeah, don't we wish it were that simple. Let's move forward and see where all this leads to...