Re: Irreducible Functionality and Complexity

On Jan 28, 8:49 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:51 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



backspace wrote:
On Jan 28, 4:02 am, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
On 27/01/2011 20:11, John Harshman wrote:
backspace wrote:
http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionality
=== Irreducible optimized functionality ===
The achieve the function or purpose of catching mouse needs five
parts. There can't be less than five parts or the ''optimum''
functionality won't be achieved.
Removing two parts as Kenneth Miller does achieves the fuctionality of
a powerful paper clip: it no longer can catch mouse automatically.
Miller is equivocating between different types of functionalities with
the word "complexity". A better term for Behe's (Irreducbile
Complexity)IC is '''Irreducible optimized functionality'''. The
purpose of the mouse trap is to catch mouse ''unattended'' which as
far as mouse trap engineers can determine needs a minimum of five
parts. Removing the mouse base and stapling it to the floor doesn't
remove the ''purpose'' of the original base but replaces one type of
base for another and it removes the mobility of the mouse trap thus
reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality.
Same with the flagellum, it needs 40 parts to swim through the fluid:
to achieve the purpose of ''Irreducbile Optimized
Functionality(IOF)''. The type III secretory mechanism which injects
toxins needs x parts to achieve a different IOF. purpose. They both
use some of the same shapes, they both need a minimum of 40 and x
parts respectively in order to '''optimize''' their functionality.
Some IC systems could still function with less parts but like the
mouse trap stapled to the ground at the cost of reduced functionality.
With less than 40 parts , a Calvin and Hobb's creation is made, more a
Rube Goldberg contraption. Both the toxin and flagellum use a round
shape reducing friction the most. A watch and turbine use round shapes
because it achives optimized fuctionality.
== Austetics ==
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesthetics. Human designers making
watches don't always strive for the most optimized solution with
minimal parts but a combination of Rube Goldberg(RG) and
optimality(more parts than needed).
Extending the same notion to IOF three notions are proposed:
* 1) There will exist biological machines that are purely
IOF(irreducibly optimized functional).
* 2) There will exist biological machines that combine IF(irreducible
functionality) with Rube Goldberg geniality to make a statement of
austetics: ''Irreducible functionality Rube Goldberg''.
* 3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, as we go
smaller it will become more IOF until we reach the smallest micro
machines such as as bacterial flagellum which will be fully IOF and
not IFRG.
Darwin in one of his passages on the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tufted_Titmouse
speculated that larger feet would have been a better design for the
bird. He insinuated that if it was made by God ,that he didn't know
what he was doing. Instead we should view every single biological
design as oscillating between IOF and IFRG. The titmouse is optimzed
for both its functions of grasping twigs and flying: feet that are to
large will induce excessive wind drag, feet that are to small won't
grasp twigs. Viewed from an IFRG , IOF or IF perspective the feet are
just perfect, made by a perfect Designer(Jesus Christ).
Thehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird-of-paradisecouldprobablybe
made more IOF at the expense of its austetics. With the bacterial
flagellum we probably have IOF and none IFRG, in its environment it
has to optimize every single appendage for its function. But with the
fowls, the Lord Jesus made a different statement. Bacterial flagellums
expresses its optimum function by not having as an aestetic appearance
as a titmouse has. We humans as austetic beings want our fowls to be
both functional and pleasing to the eye.
The primary consideration with the B-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_bomber
was low radar signature and not austetics(IOF). With the non-stealth
bombers the designers were more at liberty to work from an IFRG
perspective.
Stealth bombers aren't adapted to their condition of existence but are
described by their attributes. No biological micro or macro machine is
adapted to its condition of existence.
I would sure like to make some sense of what you say, but you will have
to help out by trying very hard to be coherent. I realize that's
unlikely.
When exactly did Darwin claim that tufted titmice had feet that were too
small? I am so far unable to find it in any of Darwin's writings, or in
your reference. It would seem a silly thing for Darwin to say, since
foot size should be easy to change through selection.
Spelling, by the way: you mean "too" and "esthetics", I believe, as in
"feet that are too large" and "at the expense of its esthetics".
I don;t think he did. Darwin is talking about the feet of the titmouse
in OoS,
Actually, he isn't. He calls it a titmouse, but he is in fact referring
to the great tit _Parus major_ rather than the tufted titmouse
_Baeolophus bicolor_.

Under "Objections to the theory of NS sd regarding to
Instincts." He addresses the old "chicken and egg" problem - what good
are beaks better suited for cracking nuts if the bird doesn't like nuts,
and how can a bird like nuts if it can't open them with its beak"
His point is then exactly to say: imagine the bird can already crack
sees,and now its feet are growing, which enables it to climb tress to
get nuts at source - hence forming a new habit.
Nothing about god or inefficient design there.

It will be corrected athttp://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Irreducible_Functionality
with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Tit

The article has been edited and the following are proposed to extend
Behe's IC:
1) There will exist biological machines that are purely
IOF(irreducibly optimized functional).
2) There will exist biological machines that combine IF(irreducible
functionality) with Rube Goldberg geniality to make a statement of
austetics: Irreducible functionality Rube Goldberg.
3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, as we go
smaller it will become more IOF until we reach the smallest micro
machines such as as bacterial flagellum which will be fully IOF and
not IFRG.

That's certainly opaque. Is unintelligibility what you were aiming for?

I confess I saw more than a passing resemblance between backspace and
another person who has a strong interest in "logic" (but also one
whose reasoning only makes sense to himself) and who thought that "The
government (scientists, in backspace's private alternate dream
reality) is implying mind control and brainwash on the people by
controlling grammar.  backspace also seems to believe in a truth
language that has been discarded.  Even mathematics becomes relative
and grammatically controlled in such a fantasy world.   My instructor
said he called a number 6, and I said I call it 18."   How can you
deny math instead of accept it?

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/10/jared-lee-loughner-s-mental-state....

I have, of course, no reason at all to think that backspace (unlike
the above person) is of any danger to others.  Most (the vast, vast
majority) people with distorted thinking are not and many can even be
productive citizens.  And, unlike the above person, I feel no hint of
"anger" in backspace's responses to others here.  But I do admit that
he was one of the first people I thought about as having similarity in
"thought" processes.  I am not a psychologist, nor do I even wish to
play one on the net, so take that into consideration.  Just pointing
out my impressions of some similarities in thought processes that
occurred to me at the time.

Our political and social discourse have embalmed into hyperbole. From
Glen Beck's acidifying oratory to the cornification of America by
Sarah Palin and emotional slop from Oprah Winfrey the American mind
has entered a type of intimate cartoonish universe, its sense of the
spiritual and eternal oxidized.

A most unfortunate event transpired in that a mother and wife was shot
by what seems to be a paranoid schizophrenic. With cunning and callous
precision this was used to target political opponents for ratings. A
schizophrenic can be influenced by over the top metaphorical imagery
and statements, uttered in a context where acting like a Howler monkey
is preferred above the serenity of a contemplating logician.

The Democrats and Obama were first to intone that the ''political
rhetoric'' must be scaled down. Presumably Obama isn't engaging
himself in any gladiatorial battles of demagoguery but in rational
engagement,insinuating that the Republicans in general and Sarah Palin
in particular are responsible for a schizophrenic out of touch with
reality.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Irreducible Functionality and Complexity
    ... The achieve the function or purpose of catching mouse needs five ... reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality. ... Extending the same notion to IOF three notions are proposed: ... * 3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Irreducible Functionality and Complexity
    ... The achieve the function or purpose of catching mouse needs five ... reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality. ... Extending the same notion to IOF three notions are proposed: ... * 3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Irreducible Functionality and Complexity
    ... The achieve the function or purpose of catching mouse needs five ... reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality. ... Extending the same notion to IOF three notions are proposed: ... * 3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Irreducible Functionality and Complexity
    ... The achieve the function or purpose of catching mouse needs five ... reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality. ... Extending the same notion to IOF three notions are proposed: ... * 3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Irreducible Functionality and Complexity
    ... The achieve the function or purpose of catching mouse needs five ... reducing its overall purposefulness: Reduced functionality. ... Extending the same notion to IOF three notions are proposed: ... * 3) The larger the animal the more we tend to have IFRG, ...
    (talk.origins)