Serialised book (with a progressively updated >>dashboard/ToC<< page). Part I: Metaphysics of the Life Instinct.

Book: Philosophy of Life Instinct: Chapter 7: Science and The Life Instinct

Life Instinct as a fundamental force

(Take this chapter as a scenic detour before returning to the main course. The book is consistent even if these speculations are unfounded. But if there is any truth here, it adds a whole new dimension to life.)

At this point in the book, we have explored life, the Life Instinct, our capacity to understand ourselves, and our freedom of action. Before we apply them to various human life areas in Part II, let us complete our metaphysical tour by looking for a single explanation for life and the Life Instinct.

At its start, the universe was all energy. When matter appeared, so did the force of gravity. When charge appeared, so did electromagnetic force. And with the emergence of other features, there came the strong and weak nuclear forces.

Did life also appear with its own force — the Life Instinct?

It is the question we will address in this chapter. We will do this by looking at: how life appeared, whether the Life Instinct qualifies as a force, where it may be located, its implications, and the force’s laws.

1. The Emergence of Life

What happened to spark life into being and develop into the forms we know today?

Here is a possible story. It may neither be proven nor what happened, but it will serve the purpose of taking us back to the beginning to see if we can figure out how and why life exists.

1.1 Staying alive

Billions of years ago, on Earth or some other spatial body, a particular condition existed of specific hydrocarbon molecules, liquids, and gases within a particular temperature range.

By chance, some of these molecules accidentally came together and started behaving differently in resisting disintegration by actively replenishing their constituent materials. Essentially, they began to feed to maintain the combination.

The initial impulse was just to retain their form. What was so special about this combination that it wanted to self-preserve, compared to others that did not have this impulse? That is the question, is it not? Before tackling that, let us wait a bit and continue looking at how things progressed after this survival impulse sparked.

We can call these first, most basic forms ‘stayers’. They resisted breaking back down to raw materials, but why would their structure be disintegrating? It was probably due to attrition from the water or atmosphere in which they were immersed.

These successful stayers had molecules on their surface that actively pushed new material towards their interior, with two positive outcomes — increasing their bulk to reduce their surface area and erosion and a supply of raw material to form new surface molecules. So the surface molecules were different from those in the interior. If we say these first assemblages were single ‘cells’, the specialised outermost layer of molecules was the first cell wall.

Production of surface molecules happened through one or both mechanisms — combining different types of molecules or extending one type. Once ready, they were pushed to the surface to replace those worn or torn away.

These self-preservation steps — absorption of raw molecules, pushing them inwards, modifying them, and pushing them outwards — needed force, and therefore energy. So, the spark of self-preservation was literally a spark of a sort, for the successful organisms had also chanced upon a way of absorbing energy and releasing it where it was required. Energy supply is essential for biological activity.

There had to be molecules in the interior to release the energy, combine and extend the raw materials and push them to the surface. These molecules had to use the absorbed energy rapidly, lacking the facility to store it for gradual release when and where required. Or it could be that energy-storing molecules arose simultaneously, but let us assume they weren’t a must in the first versions.

So, at least three types of molecules formed a stable entity— absorbers for raw materials and energy on the surface, factory molecules, and raw molecules in the interior. We can call these sets of molecules primordial organs, and the entity can be termed an organism.

We can say that the beginning of self-preservation was with the active use of energy by specific carbon-hydrogen molecules working together to maintain their combined form. Through chance, this seemingly simple yet complex function began: lose material, gain energy, gain material, modify material, replace material, repeat.

It also means that a self-preserving entity could not have begun as just one atom or molecule. It would have required a minimum amount of matter and structure. In other words, the first archaic organism was a whole thing when the pulse of survival started beating in it.

(An engineer asked to construct such an object from scratch would find it almost impossible. Imagine what natural chance has wrought.)

So can we say this is a life form now? Not yet, for we see other self-preserving entities that we don’t take to be alive. The sun, for example, has complex processes and a structure to release energy through fusion reactions, migrate material from interior to exterior and back, and maintains its form. Similarly, rocks and stalagmites on Earth with identifiable shapes remain stable or grow, with molecules on their surface that catch fresh material that touches them.

So we need to find a further change in our tiny little stayers before we think of them as alive.

1.2 Growing and reproducing

Initially, all the single-celled organisms formed individually and directly from raw materials, surviving for a while and dying. Why did this not simply continue? Maybe it was the state of affairs for a time, perhaps a few million years. There was no external agency or driver to change anything for the stayer organisms. But the sizes of all the microorganisms were not the same. Some were larger.

By chance, some of the single-celled organisms split into two parts. Some divided into unequal parts in terms of size and partitioning of internal components, and some split into two almost equal and similar parts. The latter survived for a while.

Two factors decided the moment of splitting — time and size. Those that split into non-growing resultant parts either withered away or did not have the splitting impulse themselves.

But those that grew in size after they split were more robust and persisted. They had the same impulse to grow and divide at the same approximate age and size because their structures were the same as their single parents’. This cycle started repeating for these organisms.

The splitting and growing and splitting introduced a vital new capability. Every time there was a division, the resultant entities were slightly different from the parent. Instead of random compounds of carbon-hydrogen molecules trying to survive, there was now a population of proven stayers giving rise to new stayers by splitting and growing. We can call these entities ‘stayer-grower-dividers’.

They would not be dividing with any intent to keep their ‘type’ alive. They just happened to be those that did. But they had the impulse now to divide as an inherent characteristic. So, the second impulse of the Life Instinct was in these organisms now, a blind, unthinking, unconscious and innate urge to divide into two after maintaining their form for some time. But the result was continuous improvement in the survivability of the type of our subject organisms. So, to add wonder to wonder, these organisms had stumbled on reproduction.

So, can we now say a life form had emerged? Yes, because we don’t observe the sun or sedimentary rocks making copies of themselves that continually improve as a side effect of survival of the fittest, or evolve, in other words. There is something unique happening now.

From where did this impulse to divide and reproduce come? Now that is the second question, is it not?

Before we try to answer it, let us continue observing what may have further happened.

1.3 Becoming multi-cellular

The internal organisation and components of our stayer-grower-divider organisms gradually got more complex. One of the key developments was the component we now call genetic material, which helped immensely by codifying the complicated organisation and processes in a single, centralised, cohesive and efficient structure: RNA (Ribonucleic Acid), and eventually DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid). Together, they direct the configuration, growth, functions, and reproduction of the life forms we know (except viruses that depend only on RNA to control the host’s organs for most operations).

Here is the structure of a bacterium with its parts and their functions. We can see what has resulted from evolution through the survival of the fittest, for one of the simplest life forms we know.

By chance, some of our stayer-divider-growers found that if they split into two parts that did not separate and go their ways to grow and reproduce independently but stuck together, they survived better. It could have been because the two were simply a physically stronger structure, better able to resist accidental death, or the two cells had slightly different and complementary capabilities that made them more adaptable.

Now that they self-preserved as a multi-cellular entity, all their cells split simultaneously to create multi-cellular copies, and this cycle began repeating.

Then, by chance, one of the multicellular organisms with many cells, and greater internal differentiation, created a copy differently by budding an entire section of its body that was uniform with the rest of it. This bud grew in size and repeated the process. As the type of organism survived, a new form of reproduction had evolved.

With increased complexity, budding would have proved lethal, and, by chance, other forms of reproduction would have developed.

Through the survival of these multicellular organisms' fittest types, they grew into assemblages of hundreds, then thousands, to millions to billions of cells. But along the way, they did not remain just a clump of uniform cells. Groups of adjoining cells became differentiated by function and became organs of the overall life form, and larger life forms arose — fungi, then plants, and finally animals.

We should note that cell splitting became an internal process in all but the most basic organisms, and cell division became the mechanism for growth in size rather than cell enlargement.

This final form can be called ‘stayer-divider-multicellular-grower-reproducers’. That is essentially what we humans are — ‘stayer-divider-multicellular-grower-reproducers’ — just a sophisticated version of the first ones.

(Of course, this type of origin and evolution could have happened elsewhere for non-hydrocarbon based life forms. If we encounter them, it would be interesting to learn whether their development involved similar chance occurrences)

The role of chance in the emergence of life

The story in section 1 sounds very chancy and unlikely. But if it is true, is it just a matter of statistics? Were primordial conditions on Earth or a comet creating so many billions and trillions of new combinations of atoms, molecules and chemicals that some of them had to end up with these impulses? But what has statistics got to do with it? Even if all 7.8 billion humans on Earth started flapping their hands, how likely do you think it is that some will suddenly begin flying? Even this outlandish idea is more probable than the utterly freakish beginning of life.

Life is not even like something else in the Universe that we know. For example, if there are gases, we can surmise liquids. If there are stars, we may think of black holes. But there is nothing else like life.

Yet, life is here.

But it is still most rational to lay its existence at the door of chance. So we will. We will boldly say — life arose by chance. Like energy, matter, space and time arose by chance.

Of course, many may find the story in this section the strongest argument for a cosmic designer’s existence, an intelligent creator of life — God. As someone in awe of chance for what it has created, how can I dismiss this possibility as a potentially better explanation?

But I will take my chances and stick to chance.

2. The question I dare not ask, but do ask.

Is Life Instinct the fifth fundamental force in the universe?

There, I have asked it.

Let’s say it was through chance that life began. But then, that is probably true for the entire universe. It does not stop us from understanding its nature and looking for consistent patterns and rules to help us deal better with its forces.

Let us then investigate the chance entity called life to determine if it is tied up with an objective and measurable force.

I arrived at this fork in the road of science and rationality through a rather intricate train of thought, so I will segregate it into six themes to make it easier to follow.

2.1 Inseparability

It started with my wondering exactly where the Life Instinct lies. Is it in a particular protein type (given how ubiquitous they are in life forms)? We know that RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) is a protein that exists even in the simplest life forms (DNA came a bit later in evolution). So, is it there the life instinct lies? In the molecules of RNA? Or is it in the combination of RNA or DNA with some other materials?

We know that gravity needs mass, electromagnetism needs a charge, and the other two forces need other specific characteristics in objects.

Physics currently theorises four forces or force fields to explain the universe. These are the forces of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Most readers will know the first two. So I will mention that the strong nuclear force operates at the fundamental particles’ scale and binds them together into larger particles, the atom’s nucleus, and other basic building blocks of matter. The weak nuclear force is involved in the decay of particles. Although called the weak force, it underlies significant phenomena like the nuclear fusion that powers the sun.

In other words , fundamental particles and their assemblages of various types and sizes are subject to the four fundamental forces because they are composed in a certain way and the nature of existence itself.

But this is a very similar and analogous statement to saying — living things of various types and sizes are subject to the fundamental life instincts because they are composed in a certain way and due to the nature of existence itself.

When we parse the above, the focus moves from the objects to something inherent in existence. For example, we may wonder why gravity needs mass. But after a while, we realise that this question is trivial and moot. It is like asking — why does a horse run? It does so because it is a horse. It is inherent in its definition. Gravity and matter are bound up. We cannot ask why there is gravity without asking why there is matter. And if we settle on saying — matter is just there, then we quickly realise that gravity is just there with it. And both are real, as an object and its characteristic. One does not give rise to the other. They are together the definition, with the amount of one affecting the strength of the other. So, we get a rule of the sort: an object with more matter exerts a stronger gravitational force.

It led me to the idea that the Life Instinct may be inseparable from specific material compositions. And if we parse the sentence now, the fundamental forces of the first corresponds to the second's life instinct.

This observation prompted me to equate the Life Instinct with a fundamental force and ask myself if there is a fifth — the Life Force, inseparable from life forms besides the four known fundamental forces.

2.2 Universality

But does such a fundamental characteristic not have to exist for all objects? No, because we see that the four accepted forces are not all present at all times for all entities. To illustrate: the electromagnetic force does not exist for particles or objects without a charge, the strong nuclear force does not exist for large objects, the laws of gravity break down at the nuclear level, and so on.

So Life Instinct can very well be confined to limited forms of matter. But then, it must always be present in such forms as intrinsic to them.

Okay, but why does the Life Instinct have to be a force? Can’t it be something else fundamental, like space, matter or time? However, this idea fell away quickly because space, matter and time are not characteristics of discrete objects but are universals. The Life Instinct is not. It is lower in the hierarchy of universals as it accompanies limited entity types. It is at the level of mass, energy, charge, spin and such.

2.3 Effect and Scale

So maybe it is a force, but to be sure, we should check the definition of force. A force is something that can change the motion of an object. It can cause something to start moving, stop moving, or move in a different direction. Voila! It is precisely what we see in the Life Instinct as something that moves the molecules in a bacterium to feed, the neurons in our mind to make choices, and drives every other act of life.

But does it scale up with the size or some feature of the life form, like gravity scales up with the object’s mass? Let’s explore this. We know that life forms cause real and tangible changes, like reproduction, growth, movement, and impact on their surroundings. We are even beginning to affect the moon, comets and other planets. So, life has power. Perhaps not as much as gravity, electromagnetism, and the two nuclear forces. Nevertheless, it does have the potential to cause changes, even if humans are a tiny amount of matter on a single small planet of the universe. And if other life forms are about the same size and number, theirs would still be a minuscule force intrinsically, compared to the other four.

But if we consider which life feature has the most potent force, analogous to mass in an object, it seems to be intelligence. The more intelligent a life form, the stronger its influence on itself and its environment. With intelligence, we have devised nuclear bombs that can tear apart a small planet. And no doubt this ‘projected’ power will grow.

As for scale, how do all the cells of a muscle or group of muscles, e.g. in the heart, work together? Or neurons in the brain? What is coordinating the millions of cells so fast, smoothly, perfectly? Researchers consider many highly complex electrical signalling mechanisms. See, e.g., Histology-Muscle (https://www.auburn.edu/academic/classes/zy/hist0509/html/Lec06notes-muscle.html).

We can see that the scale of Life Instinct’s force extends from a single cell to cellular structures, organs and entire life-forms.

2.4 Detectability and measurability

Does the Force of Life Instinct need to be detectable? Yes. But how do we detect forces? By seeing their effects on and interactions with other objects.

For detecting the Life Instinct, we can observe sperm swimming towards eggs, animals moving towards food, babies crawling to mothers, men cosying up to women, and thousands of such examples. We could set up experiments to ‘detect’ the start of these involuntary movements. They seem as natural, unforced, unthinking and predictable as an apple falling from a tree to the ground due to gravity.

Must the Force of Life Instinct be measurable? Ideally, yes. We can then give a unit of measurement to the Life Force and say that some events and individuals have more of it than others. That would be easy enough. But we will not do that exercise in this book.

2.5 Action at a distance

The known forces act at a distance. Does Life Instinct do so too? It is interesting. What is the scale we are talking about? We can consider four spaces — within a cell, within a life form, between life forms and between life forms and inert objects. We will consider two aspects: the exchange of material to affect other objects and the possibility of force fields between them.

Carrier particles

Science has shown that the interactions of matter happen through ‘carrier particles’ that move between objects to transmit their fundamental forces. Gravitons are the carrier particles for gravity, photons for electromagnetism, gluons for the strong nuclear force, and bosons for the weak nuclear force. Let us consider what happens in living beings.

Within a cell, the nucleus has DNA or RNA and creates messenger RNA or mRNA. The mRNA travels out of the nucleus through the nuclear membrane, and ribosomes use them to synthesise the proteins involved in all life activities. It is the most fundamental of all activities in a life form, from the uni-cellular body to every cell in higher animals' complex organs. Section 3 below illustrates this when we look for a potential life force’s precise location.

Within a multi-cellular life form, we can consider action-at-a-distance by taking the human body as an example.

A few common action-at-a-distance scenarios exist — between the cells of organs; neurons and neurons; neurons and muscles; neurons and glands. In all cases, communication involves the transmission of molecules. Glutamate is transmitted in 90% of the brain and central nervous system activities, e.g. to create and retrieve memories. Acetylcholine is transmitted between motor neurons and muscles to activate the latter. Dopamine is transmitted between neurons for voluntary actions and reward systems.

The picture below shows the primary communication modes between cells in our body. Paracrine signalling is between adjacent cells (e.g., between nerves and muscles), Autocrine back to the cell itself (e.g., for pain management), and Endocrine signalling is over long distances, using the circulatory system and hormones (e.g., for growth).

All physical movements are carried out by firing an action potential and sending a signal across gaps between neurons and muscles' cells. The nerves do not touch each other or muscles. There is a gap called a synapse or synaptic cleft. A signal is transmitted across them. The transmitted molecules are called neurotransmitters. They are based on Amines, a molecule made of Nitrogen, Carbon and Hydrogen atoms. They are present in all organisms and function similarly.

The picture below shows how a motor neuron causes a muscle to contract or expand by transmitting charge potentials via Acetylcholine.

The picture below shows how two neuronal cells interact across a synaptic gap.

How about in between life forms? If I tell you there is a dog behind you and you turn to look, is it the Force of Life Instinct acting at a distance? In this case, what is being transmitted is my voice’s sound as pressure waves via the air between us. But this type of signal can come from other sources, such as a falling rock. There is also the limitation that we cannot change the movements of other life forms directly. For example, we can only destroy harmful bacteria through physical or chemical action, not by connecting with their cells to make them leave us alone. We do not have a means to directly transfer amines or hormones to other life forms' cells. So, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that a Force of Life Instinct with a force field and carrier particles is acting directly between two life forms. It also means we do not need to consider telepathy as a possibility, at least in my current thinking.

The fourth type of interaction, between a life form and an inert object, only seems to happen through physical and mechanical means. We kick a rock or bleach a stain. We cannot do it without direct material contact. I know of no exceptions to this, Uri Geller notwithstanding. Otherwise, we would admit the possibility of telekinesis, or the ability to affect material objects through the mind, like bending a spoon just by staring at it hard and imagining it bending. I am not willing to stray so far at present.

In summary, we observe that life forms’ internal structures transmit specific molecules to affect each other across space as inert objects interact by transmitting carrier particles.

Force fields and particle-waves

There has long been the question of how inert objects ‘know’ about other objects, e.g., how a proton senses an electron nearby to send it a photon and attract it through electromagnetic force. The theory of a field existing between them was postulated to explain their interaction. A disturbance or wave could be said to travel through the field existing in the space between objects to make them aware of each other. The carrier particles — photons, graviton, gluons and bosons — could be one way we perceive the wave or vice versa. In other words, physics considers all matter to have a dual form, wave-particles, manifesting in different ways in different circumstances. Besides action at a distance, the theory of force fields explains many other phenomena, including particle refraction, diffraction, interference patterns, probability and quantum uncertainty.

One could ask how a neuron knows another neuron is nearby to send a signalling molecule to it in life forms. Is there a force field between them, different from an electromagnetic one? Surely, a neuron does not randomly keep firing signals, irrespective if there is a receiver. That would be too wasteful to be tolerated by evolution. So, it knows, whether through the electromagnetic field or a special force field (assuming gravity and the other two nuclear forces do not apply).

3. Where could the life force be located in a life form?

Looking closely at the impulse for survival and reproduction, does the drive come from each cell’s DNA molecule? Or is the life impulse in the whole organism, whether it is a bacteria, plant, bird or whale?

Let us consider a larger life form, e.g., humans. A human would die long before we got down to single cells. But we know that if we remove the limbs or a kidney, an eye or part of the liver, we would still be alive, although not as robust. If we remove the heart and put the body on a heart machine and the brain is fine, we will be alive. If the lungs collapse, but we use a lung machine, with our brain working, we will be alive. So, as long as the brain displays the drive for self-preservation, ready to use the heart and lungs if they are restored or replaced, we are alive.

If our nervous system is not independently sending impulses to absorb oxygen and circulate it by pumping blood to the cells (for metabolising food and releasing energy) for their functions, it is equivalent to being dead. And if it is trying to do so but the organs are absent or destroyed, the nervous system will also lose its life instinct within a few minutes.

(We should note in passing that even after being in a coma or clinically dead, a body can be revived to life if its critical structures are undeteriorated. It shows that the Life Instinct is in the body's material and composition and not something intangible.)

So, the life instinct needs a minimum amount and type of intact cells. The minimum number and form depend on the kind of living entity. As we classify even a single bacterium as a valid life form, the smallest size is a single cell. And life is so smooth a continuum between species that we cannot consider only self-aware species as alive and lower forms as machines.

As the lowest common factor is a cell, let us look at what happens when it carries out the most basic function, creating the proteins that differentiate all cells and organs for every life activity — absorbing food, oxygen, moving, neural activity, division, etc. What forces may be involved in protein synthesis?

A cell with DNA, RNA, ribosomes, mitochondria (for energy) and raw material around them can be formed in one of these ways — primordially, from a parent organism, from an embryonic cell, or in a lab. The genes in DNA are the codes for protein molecules that are the “workhorses” of the cell, carrying out all the functions necessary for life. A gene is a template on DNA for manufacturing its corresponding protein. Once the viable basic cell forms, the protein creation process happens in two steps. In the first step, the gene’s information is transferred to a messenger RNA (mRNA) molecule by the transcription process. During transcription, the DNA molecules of a gene sequence serve as a template for an enzyme to separate the DNA strands and catalyse a pre-mRNA molecule, which is then processed to form mature mRNA that mirrors the gene. The mRNA is then translated into a protein molecule by the second major step called translation. The mRNA is the code that specifies a particular amino acid. The mRNA sequence is used as a template by transfer RNA in ribosomes to assemble the chain of amino acids and form a protein.

The picture below shows this process in a simple way. Even so, we can see the intricate choreography involved in this most basic activity of life. Imagine this happening between complex molecules twisted in helical shapes while floating in the nucleus and outside it later. The second picture below shows the realistic 3-dimensional DNA and RNA molecules.

Can this complex process be driven only by the electromagnetic forces and fields between the RNA, DNA and enzymes? What impels the mRNA in the first place towards the DNA and into a precise location? It is way more complicated than a space shuttle docking with a Space Station. Is there some force other than electromagnetism at work?

In summary, we can conjecture that the force of Life Instinct is in the cell of a unicellular organism and collections of cells in multicellular organisms, with a specific minimum part in either being necessary to sustain the force.

Collecting our thoughts

We come back to the fundamental question: If there is no separate life force in each living cell, either unique or a formulation of other fundamental forces, how can the push and pull of life exist in the tiniest function in a cell to the most complex activities in advanced animals? How are there the minute and precise movements that life needs?

The following studies go deep into the mechanisms, including random Brownian motion and electromagnetism, that may be driving the processes within and between cells. Please scan them to get a feel for the complexities and unknowns. Mechanism of RNA transport in the nucleus (https://www.pnas.org/content/102/47/17008); Postulates on electromagnetic activity in biological systems and cancer (https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2013/ib/c3ib40166a).

Even if there were a fundamental force of Life Instinct, I admit I am not sure if it has a carrier particle, operates at a distance and has a force field. But every force differs from the others. Strictly, it is not a must for the Force of Life Instinct to have all the other four forces' fundamental characteristics.

So we will go ahead and admit the possibility that the Force of Life Instinct exists and is distinct from the other four forces of nature. It may help us practically in the study of life and humanity. We will further allow that mRNA in cells and amines in more extensive processes could be the carrier particles between the structures that exert the Force of Life Instinct. The force operates at a scale of 20 to 5,000 nanometers (from the size of a bacterium to a neural synapse). We will allow that the Force of Life Instinct could have the essential nature of animating specific types of inert matter into becoming self-preserving and reproductive.

4. Implications if the Force of Life Instinct is real

If life is based on a fundamental force of nature, one of the excellent outcomes would be to free it from the specific rules of gravity, electromagnetism and nuclear forces. We would not struggle to make them underpin the Life Instinct’s urges of self-preservation and reproduction. We would not agonise why certain forms of matter are so different. We would free life from their yoke. It would have its own rules — universal, primary, confident and independent as any other.

We would also not be puzzled why Newtonian Mechanics and determinism don’t seem to constrain the freedom of choice in life forms. As we saw in chapter 6, Free Will is a result of the Life Instinct and evolution. We took it to be real, although it seemed scientifically inexplicable. But if the Life Instinct is the fundamental force that led to this characteristic, we need not doubt our freedom’s existence in other frameworks of understanding.

5. Laws of the Force of Life Instinct

If the Life Instinct is a force of nature, can we formulate its fundamental laws, as we do for gravity and the other forces? We would have to account for all the essential characteristics of this form of matter — self-preservation, reproduction, choice and impact.

The Life Force gives rise to certain universally observed and consistent phenomena from which we can deduce the following five Laws:

1. The Law of Self-Preservation —The Force of Life Instinct will induce a life form to preserve itself.
2. The Law of Reproduction — The Force of Life Instinct will induce a life form to reproduce with continual blueprint variation.
3. The Law of Scale — The Force of Life Instinct is present in single cells, assemblies of specialised cells that work together as organs, and in assemblies of organs as life forms.
4. The Law of Impact — The Force of Life Instinct can impact the universe in proportion to the intelligence it induces in life forms.
5. The Law of Free Will — The Force of Life Instinct induces a self-aware life form to observe itself and make choices that support the First and Second Laws.

(Strictly speaking, the fifth law would be an outcome of the first two and not apply to the life forms that have not developed self-awareness and freedom of choice. However, it is so vital for the life forms that do have this capacity that it can be elevated to a Law and applied by such life forms.)

These are qualitative laws, unlike, say, Newton’s Laws of Motion. We could attempt to measure life’s characteristics quantitatively to explain their behaviour better. However, such an elaboration of the Laws of Force of Life Instinct© deserves a book by itself, which I may write someday. Meanwhile, this book explores the effects of these potential rules qualitatively, as they may help in many ways quantitative laws would.

Conclusions

At this very moment, electrical signals are firing inside and between our body's approximately fifteen trillion cells. Quadrillions of electrical impulses are keeping us alive and active. All coordinated and synchronised. By what? Even if it is our nervous system, what directs that? Do a quadrillion separate impulses come out of nowhere? Or does a single one set them all off?

Every time we investigate a life activity, we seem to come up with an explanation from our existing sciences. Yet, the real prime mover hovers like an apparition above it all, just out of reach, vanishing when we look at it directly.

Tai chi movements in the park, a virtuoso jazz performance, Michelangelo sculpting David — all outcomes of electrical charges? It is mind-boggling to think all life is an autonomous yet organised dance, totally determined by external and internal electrostatic interactions. There could be a simpler and more elegant origin.

I want to be wrong about this. Given how much I love the sciences and physics we know, I feel like a quack, writing this chapter’s ideas. I am as rational as anyone, maybe even more than Einstein, as he believed in God and did not believe some of Quantum Physics's (now proven) theories. It is not easy for me to consider the Life Instinct can be a fifth force of the universe.

I will be delighted if science ends up explaining the Life Instinct in some ordinary way or through the four fundamental forces accepted currently (or their Grand Unified Theory), following the rules of the nuclear, gravitational and electromagnetic forces. It may include quantum uncertainty, probability, the wave-particle nature of matter, entanglement, and other hard to imagine but accepted phenomena. It may all simply be chemistry (which is electromagnetism and physics, basically). Even if there is some other compelling explanation, it would be fine by me.

But the universe is mysterious. We have not yet, in early 2021, explained the relationships and interactions between all the known forces. We are still seeking the Grand Unified Theory. And there could be many aspects of the universe left to discover. So, we don’t need to be too deferential to our current knowledge.

In the end, it all comes down to the fact — life is a uniquely organised complexity in the universe. If there is nothing fundamentally different about it, why does it act so selfish, so wilful? This chapter is an attempt to find something special and unique about life. I may be barking up the wrong tree, but I am sure you understand my quest.

Until proven otherwise, let us grant that Life Instinct could be a fundamental force of existence with specific laws and implications.

(With this chapter, we have completed our metaphysical explorations. Chapters 1 to 6 have equipped us with the tools required to explore humanity’s facets in the book's second part.)

© 2020 Shashidhar Sastry. All rights reserved.

(As each chapter of the book is published, its link is updated in the ToC below.)

Table of Contents

Part I Metaphysics of The Life Instinct

Part II Philosophy of The Life Instinct

Part III The Life Instinct and The Future

Published By Shashidhar Sastry

Join my email list? — it’s easy to unsubscribe if you change your mind.

There’s more for you at quality-thinking.com.