The development of a scientific theory of mind was thus significantly delayed."--BOOK JACKET.

Scientists and engineers who extensively use the term “nanomachine” are not always aware of the philosophical implications of this term. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the concept of nanomachine through a distinction between three major paradigms of machine. After a brief presentation of two well-known paradigms - Cartesian mechanistic machines and Von Neumann's complex and uncontrolled machines – we will argue that Drexler's model was mainly Cartesian. But what about the model of his critics? We propose a (...) third model - Gilbert Simondon's notion of concrete machines – which seems more appropriate to understand nanomachines than the notion of “soft machines”. Finally we review a few strategies currently used to design nanomachines, in an effort to determine which paradigm they belong to. (shrink)

Focusing on the breakthrough field of molecular engineering--a new technology enabling scientists to build tiny machines atom by atom--the author offers projections on how this technological revolution will affect the future of computer science, space travel, medicine, and manufacturing.

Proclaiming Louis Pasteur as the “Founder of Stereochemistry”, the distinguished Scottish chemist, Crum Brown, addressing a late nineteenth-century audience of Edinburgh savants, drew attention—as Pasteur had incessantly done—to the intimate relationship between living organisms and the optical activity of compounds sustaining them. It seemed to Crum Brown “that we must go very much further down in the scale of animate existence than Buridan's ass, before we come to a being incapable of giving practical expression to a distinct preference for one (...) of two objects differing only in being one to the right and the other to the left”. Crum Brown's lecture must have been entertaining, but it was also motivated by a serious desire to do justice to a particular assertion of Pasteur—an assertion which had, moreover, been misunderstood and dismissed by no less a chemical genius than Wilhelm Ostwald. Writing at a time when the majority of his colleagues were stressing the resemblances between inorganic and organic compounds, Pasteur had insisted that he “could not point out the existence of any more profound distinction between the products formed under the influence of life and all others” than that “artificial products have … no molecular asymmetry”. Pasteur was obliged to concede that the chemist might produce enantiomorphic pairs of isomers, but without resorting to a manual separation of crystals he was powerless to imitate Nature's performance, powerless to fabricate by chemical means a separate optical isomer, divorced from its partner. Now it was not only Crum Brown who felt that chemists had brushed aside this proposition of Pasteur. In his 1898 Presidential Address to the chemical section of the British Association, Professor F. R. Japp also complained that the possible vitalistic implications of Pasteur's distinction between natural and artificial products had been misapprehended or tacitly ignored. (shrink)

Au cours de cet entretien, Jean-Marie Lehn, professeur au Collège de France et prix Nobel de chimie, répond à quelques questions concernant les concepts fondamentaux de la chimie moderne. La matière sur laquelle opère le chimiste est celle du tableau des éléments de Mendeleïev ; et les forces dont il se sert sont les interactions électromagnétiques. La chimie, science de la structure et de la transformation de la matière, est aussi devenue une science de l’information. Elle met en œuvre à (...) présent les notions de « reconnaissance moléculaire », de « programmation », de « stratégie de construction » (Aufbau), d’« auto-organisation », de « sélection ». Le lecteur est invité à suivre l’exploration des possibles de la matière en chimie et à voir comment l’humanité peut jouer sur le clavier du possible. (shrink)