Copy part of and slightly amend the introduction of the Deal draft.

This commit is contained in:
Sergiu Ivanov 2024-02-25 20:54:47 +01:00
parent cf9230d5fe
commit 97985b3883
2 changed files with 305 additions and 1 deletions

302
deal.tex
View file

@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
\chapter{A Deal with Life}
\begin{refsection}[bib/sivanov-dblp-mod.bib,bib/sivanov-extra.bib,bib/dealb.bib]
Life is one of the most beautiful things in the universe. Arguably,
it is because we humans belong to the kingdom of Life that it
@ -59,6 +60,307 @@ intelligence in no way warrants an extraction of the human being into
an exceptional superior stance---we are part of Life, and we ought to
think and act accordingly.
\newpage
\section{A short glance on reductionism and mechanicism}
\label{sec:mecha}
In the 20th century, biology was dramatically affected by physics and
engineering, and this has brought revolutionary advances in
understanding Life and interaction with
it~\cite{CornishBowdenCLSA2007,Glade22,Nicholson2019,Woese2004}.
Grounding the function of biological structures in the physical
reality allowed for convergence of worldview between physics and
biology, thereby conferring to the latter the gravitas of a ``real''
science. A remarkable tool physics and engineering brought to biology
is reductionism---to understand a system, decompose it into parts,
understand each of the parts, and understand the interactions between
the parts to get back to the big picture. Reductionism in turn
fostered the emergence of mechanicism, the modern proponents of which
``conceive of the cell as an intricate piece of machinery whose
organization reflects a pre-existing design, whose structure is wholly
intelligible in reductionistic terms, and whose operation is governed
by deterministic laws, rendering its behaviour predictable and
controllable—at least in principle.''\cite{Nicholson2019}
With all due recognition of the major advances yielded by reductionism
and mechanicism, it appears hard to believe that this is the final
stop on the way to understanding Life. I recall first of all the
discussion in~\cite[page~2]{Woese2004} of reductionism as an
operational tool allowing to tackle complexity (empirical
reductionism), as opposed to the belief that it actually corresponds
to the organization of the living matter (fundamental reductionism).
Fundamental reductionism makes therefore an additional strong
assumption, which impacts the ``sense of what is important'':
molecular biology established the molecular level as fundamental, and
demoted the status of larger structures---e.g. organisms, ecosystems,
etc. These are deemed emergent, and therefore less important,
secondary, directly derivable from more fundamental matters.
While the notion of emergence in natural sciences is fraught, and its
objective qualities can be debated (e.g.~\cite{RonaldSC99}), it has
the merit of putting in focus the hierarchy of scales. It is
a hierarchy in the sense that, while physics teaches us that the whole
is always necessarily the sum of its parts (plus the interactions), it
is often irrelevant to put the whole away, and only peer at the
components. It is therefore important to not always fall through to
the underlying levels, and specifically to avoid Laplace's daemon
abuse: the Laplace's daemon\footnote{Laplace's daemon is a thought
experiment introducing an imaginary creature which knows exactly the
positions and momenta of every atom in the universe. The original
conclusion conceived by of Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1814 is that this
absolute knowledge should entail full knowledge of past and future
positions of these particles~\cite{wikiLaplace}. In modern days,
Laplace's daemon is often used as a metaphor for absolute knowledge
of the minutae of a complex system, down to its elementary
particles.} cannot practically exist, but should it exist, it would
in no way have any influence on the fact that we as humans find it
extremely useful to operate with concepts situated at higher
scales\footnote{An informal inspiration for these observations comes
from~\cite{Carroll}.}. It is physics again, and statistical
mechanics in particular, that recalls this saliently by deeply relying
upon thinking about systems such as gasses in terms of macrostates
(volume, pressure, temperature) and microstates (positions and momenta
of all particles)~\cite{SusskindCourse,wikiEntropy}. In other words,
while one might argue that microstates are more ``fundamental'' in
some way, it is of little practical importance, and addressing
multiple scales is still pertinent.
Fundamental reductionism as a belief is strongly related to
engineering, and specifically the practice of constructing complex
structures and mechanisms out of simpler building blocks.
The multiple ways in which engineering has been durably changing our
lives and our surroundings naturally fuels extending its reach beyond
human creation, onto living matter. A spectacular manifestation is
the Machine Conception of the Cell (MCC) as introduced
in~\cite{Nicholson2019}: the cell is seen as an intricate machine,
somewhat similar to a computer, which makes it appropriate to use
engineering terms to designate the cellular components visible by
microscopy: molecular motors, Golgi apparatus, genetic program, pumps,
locks, keys, gates, circuitry, etc. The choice of terms is in
principle contingent, and it is natural to use words evoking familiar
structures, but in practice this reinforces the belief in the
truthfulness of the engineering approach. Indeed, scientific papers
ubiquitously summarize knowledge in the form of circuits or maps.
As stated in~\cite[page~6]{Mayer2009}, ``the typical cartoons of
signaling pathways, with their reassuring arrows and limited number of
states [...] could be the real villain of the piece.'' The Wikipedia
page on molecular motors literally starts with the sentence
``Molecular motors are [...] molecular
\emph{machines}''\cite{wikiMotors} (the emphasis is mine), and
features several animations which would look appropriate in a book on
the construction of mechanical toys. The last illustration---and
probably the most verbose---of the relationship between reductionism
and the Engineer's work I bring here is the very term
``biological engineering''.
In fact, widely admitted considerations easily uncover some flaws in
the belief in the fundamental nature of the MCC~\cite{Nicholson2019}.
To cite two of the most salient ones, the cell is a milieu which is
better described as liquid, rather than solid. It is densely packed
with various molecules, which do not always strictly respect a certain
conformation, but rather continuously evolve across a spectrum of
shapes. It being impossible for a human to observe the cellular
processes with the naked eye, the researcher is tempted to follow the
mindset suggested by the available technology conceived for conceiving
of and observing microscopic machines~\cite{Glade22}, a mindset which
also happens to be mainstream. Unsurprisingly, if one looks for
machines, one finds machines, as the animation ``The Inner Life of the
Cell'' conveniently illustrates~\cite{lifeOfTheCell}.
Avoiding conceptual frameworks other than fundamental reductionism and
mechanicism not only forces our thinking into a certain box which
partially corresponds to reality, but also biases our methodology of
interactions with Life. When one imagines the cell as a machine, one
expects mechanistic explanations, building upon strong causality.
When the computer screen shows a picture or a car modifies its
trajectory, it is always possible to indicate a satisfactory set of
causes. This is because the engineers who built the device had
a specific intention in mind, which can be relatively easily unpacked.
Biological systems originated from spontaneous evolution, without
anyone human baking in specific goals, implying that causality is much
harder to establish convincingly. Yet, reductionism and mechanicism
tempt the researches to only look for correlations which may be
interpreted as causal: ``It is much easier to write and publish
a paper suggesting Protein X is necessary for transmitting a signal
from A to B, than one showing that Protein X is one of many potential
components of a heterogeneous ensemble of signaling complexes that
together couple A to B.''~\cite{Mayer2009}.
While the Machine Conception of the Cell and similar mechanistic
points of view are not oblivious to the intrinsic noise of the
respective biological systems, seeing them as machines invites to
treating noise as a nuisance which the biological systems manage to
successfully combat in every moment of their existence. However,
multiple indications exist that noise plays an essential role, as
a matter of fact making some processes possible. We cite as an
example the Brownian ratchet model of intracellular transport, which
has been gaining considerable traction recently~\cite{Nicholson2019},
and which essentially consists in hypothesising that molecular motors
feature two distinct conformations of the energy landscape---a flat
one and a saw-toothed one. By periodically switching between the two,
the motor buffeted by thermal fluctuations will tend to advance along
the cytoskeletal track it is attached to
(Figure~\ref{fig:ratchet-motor}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\tikzstyle axis=[->]
\tikzstyle movement=[-{Latex[width=1.2mm]},semithick]
\tikzstyle landscape=[very thick,cap=round]
\tikzstyle motor=[draw,circle,thick,minimum size=3.5mm]
\tikzstyle motorFlip=[motor]
\tikzstyle motorFlop=[motor,fill=black!40]
\tikzstyle motorGhost=[motor,densely dotted]
\newcommand{\landscapeXOff}{.2mm}
\newcommand{\landscapeYOff}{1mm}
\newcommand{\xLength}{56mm}
\newcommand{\yLength}{11mm}
\newcommand{\graphSkip}{\vspace{-3mm}}
\newcommand{\stepLabOff}{-7mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[axis] (0,0) --
node[midway,xshift=\stepLabOff,minimum width=7mm] {\small (1)}
(0,\yLength)
node[xshift=3mm] {$U$};
\draw[axis] (0,0) -- (\xLength, 0) node[yshift=-2mm,xshift=-1mm] {$x$};
\draw[landscape] (\landscapeXOff,\landscapeYOff) -- +(52mm,0);
\node[motorFlip] (motor) at (11mm,3mm) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)-(3.5mm,0)$) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)-(6mm,0)$) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)+(3.5mm,0)$) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)+(6mm,0)$) {};
\coordinate[above=2mm of motor] (arrowAnchor);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)-(2mm,0)$) -- +(-6mm,0);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)+(2mm,0)$) -- +(6mm,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\graphSkip
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[axis] (0,0) --
node[midway,xshift=\stepLabOff,minimum width=7mm] {\small (2)}
(0,\yLength)
node[xshift=3mm] {$U$};
\draw[axis] (0,0) -- (\xLength, 0) node[yshift=-2mm,xshift=-1mm] {$x$};
\draw[landscape] (\landscapeXOff,\landscapeYOff)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm);
\node[motorFlop] (motor) at (25.2mm,3.7mm) {};
\coordinate[above=2mm of motor] (arrowAnchor);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)-(2mm,0)$) -- +(-4.5mm,0);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)+(2mm,0)$) -- +(9mm,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\graphSkip
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[axis] (0,0) --
node[midway,xshift=\stepLabOff,minimum width=7mm] {\small (3)}
(0,\yLength)
node[xshift=3mm] {$U$};
\draw[axis] (0,0) -- (\xLength, 0) node[yshift=-2mm,xshift=-1mm] {$x$};
\draw[landscape] (\landscapeXOff,\landscapeYOff) -- +(52mm,0);
\node[motorFlip] (motor) at (25.2mm,3mm) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)-(3.5mm,0)$) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)-(6mm,0)$) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)+(3.5mm,0)$) {};
\node[motorGhost] at ($(motor)+(6mm,0)$) {};
\coordinate[above=2mm of motor] (arrowAnchor);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)-(2mm,0)$) -- +(-6mm,0);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)+(2mm,0)$) -- +(6mm,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\graphSkip
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[axis] (0,0) --
node[midway,xshift=\stepLabOff,minimum width=7mm] {\small (4)}
(0,\yLength)
node[xshift=3mm] {$U$};
\draw[axis] (0,0) -- (\xLength, 0) node[yshift=-2mm,xshift=-1mm] {$x$};
\draw[landscape] (\landscapeXOff,\landscapeYOff)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm)
-- ++(2mm,5mm) -- ++(11mm,-5mm);
\node[motorFlop] (motor) at (38.2mm,3.7mm) {};
\coordinate[above=2mm of motor] (arrowAnchor);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)-(2mm,0)$) -- +(-4.5mm,0);
\draw[movement] ($(arrowAnchor)+(2mm,0)$) -- +(9mm,0);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A schematic illustration of the Brownian ratchet model of
molecular motors. A motor is shown as a circle
(\protect\tikz[baseline,yshift=1.2mm]\protect\node[motorFlip,minimum
size=2.5mm]{}; or
\protect\tikz[baseline,yshift=1.2mm]\protect\node[motorFlop,minimum
size=2.5mm]{};), and its energy landscape is shown as a thick line
\protect\tikz[baseline,yshift=.2em]\protect\draw[landscape]
(0,0) -- (2ex,0);. The horizontal axis $x$ represents the motor's
position on the cytoskeletal track, while the vertical axis $U$
illustrates the motor's free energy. The motor is hypothesized to
feature two distinct potential energy landscapes, depending on its
conformational state. In the flip conformation
\protect\tikz[baseline,yshift=1.2mm]\protect\node[motorFlip,minimum
size=2.5mm]{};, the energy landscape is flat so the protein may
slide freely in one of the two directions, with equal probability
for both directions. In the flop conformation
\protect\tikz[baseline,yshift=1.2mm]\protect\node[motorFlop,minimum
size=2.5mm]{};, the saw-tooth shape of the landscape favors the
motor moving to the right, illustrated by a longer arrow pointing
to the right. When cycles of ATP hydrolysis make the motor
periodically switch between the two conformations, thermal
fluctuations will tend to push it to the right. (The original
figure is~\cite[Figure~4]{Nicholson2019}, itself a reproduction
from~\cite{Kurakin2006}.)}
\label{fig:ratchet-motor}
\end{figure}
Seeing Life as an ensemble of machines biases how we expect to collect
profit from acting on it. Machine means control: we are constantly
looking for knobs which we could turn this or that way, and which
could modify the behavior of the system to fit our needs and
expectations. This can be seen both at the very practical level,
where bioengineers seek to modify bacteria to produce chemicals,
e.g.~\cite{berkleyBio}, and also at the theoretical level, where
researchers develop methodologies to support looking for the coveted
knobs, e.g.~\cite{PardoID21,Vogel2008,Zanudo2015}. If we admit that
the reductionistic and mechanistic approach is not globally true, we
must therefore accept that these knobs may not necessarily have
a definitive shape, but rather be a complex assemblage of factors,
affecting the trajectory of the system in multiple non-trivial ways,
and possibly shifting in time. Finally, this control mindset
introduces an asymmetric relationship between the controller and the
controlled, which is unnatural biological context because both the
controller and the controlled are made out of the same kind of matter,
and are ultimately embedded in the same environment.
In this chapter, I introduce the Deal with Life: instead of looking to
impact biological systems asymmetrically, surreptitiously lifting
ourselves above the living matter, I propose to account for the fact
that we act within complex feedback loops, which sometimes end up
imposing the consequences of the actions on the actors. The principle
of a Deal with Life is to render the interactions \emph{mutually
beneficial}: ideally, both systems engaging in the interaction
should benefit from it. In practice, this should be translated into
joint maximization of a pair of functions measuring the utility of the
interaction for both parties, possibly with one of the two functions
being prioritized over the other.
\printbibliography[heading=subbibliography]
\end{refsection}
%%% Local Variables:
%%% TeX-engine: luatex
%%% TeX-master: "hdr"

View file

@ -82,7 +82,7 @@
}
\graphicspath{{pics/}}
\usetikzlibrary{calc}
\usetikzlibrary{calc,positioning,arrows.meta}
\newif\ifentiredoc
\entiredoctrue % Use this if you want to compile the entire document.
@ -127,6 +127,8 @@
\changelocaltocdepth{2}
\input{deal}
\fi
\end{document}