Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational Mafia: Where paranoia and misplaced trust reign supreme.

Topic: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World) (Read 177459 times) previous topic - next topic

superhoop, Testy Calibrate, Dave Hawkins, JonF, Sea Star, Pingu and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29475
All of you are full of shit ...  here's Alberts own words ...

""We have always underestimated cells . . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts (Alberts, Bruce. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the NextGeneration of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92 (8 February): 291-94)."

And are you ever going to address the part of my post you ignored because it was the part you disagreed with? Because this is a discussion board, and if you don't actually engage with other people's arguments and simply mine them for confirmatory nuggets, you might as well just use google and CTRL-F.
no because it's evangelistic preaching. I prefer to stick with science.  you know evidence... Hypotheses... Etc.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29476
but in asserting this I am not asserting that "therefore they necessarily were designed by intelligent entity."  they might have been, and I happen to believe they were, but simply "being actual  really for really real machines" does not in and of itself require this.

"Machine" is a word, Dave.  Calling a thing by the name usually given to another thing doesn't make the thing the same as the other thing.

Yes, of course, protein assemblies in cells have quite a lot in common with human-made machines in just the way that Alberts says..

Nobody is disputing this. 

What is your point?  Other than whether or not "machine" is an apt metaphor to describe them?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29477
All of you are full of shit ...  here's Alberts own words ...

""We have always underestimated cells . . . . The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts (Alberts, Bruce. 1998. The Cell as a Collection of Protein Machines: Preparing the NextGeneration of Molecular Biologists. Cell 92 (8 February): 291-94)."

And are you ever going to address the part of my post you ignored because it was the part you disagreed with? Because this is a discussion board, and if you don't actually engage with other people's arguments and simply mine them for confirmatory nuggets, you might as well just use google and CTRL-F.
no because it's evangelistic preaching.

Point to the part that you think is "evangelistic preaching" and tell me why you think it is.

I prefer to stick with science.  you know evidence... Hypotheses... Etc.

No, you do not.  You don't even know what those words mean.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29478
oh good God you're quibbling that maybe proteins are real machines but organisms are not? Give me a freaking break.
That is hardly a "quibble", you idiot.
You really think organisms can be reduced to nothing but proteins enzymes* and this is somehow an argument against reductionism ?

One more time: there is no daylight between Alberts' views and my own, either on enzymes or organisms.

* Alberts never called organisms "machines".
He never called cells "machines".
He called some proteins - specifically enzymes - "machines".
For exactly the same reasons I do.
But, alas, these distinctions are lost on the Dunning-Kruger poster child.
  • Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 12:02:15 PM by VoxRat
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29479
Here is my post:

My conclusion: both are machines, one far more complicated and sophisticated than the other.

Yes indeed.  Evolution is in general a very effective designer. 

That's not preaching.  It's using "designer" as a metaphor, just as Dave and Alberts are using "machine" as a metaphor. 

It has two drawbacks; it takes a lot of time and resources, because it tests a heck of a lot of prototypes; and it can't easily move solutions to one problem to a different lineage.  It can only tinker with the current prototype - it can't import solutions from other design-lines.

This is simply true by definition.  It's not "preaching".  Evolutionary algorithm require many generations to produce complex solutions, and many "prototypes" that turn out to be useless are generated on the way. And it can't import solutions from other design lines because it works on inheritance of characteristics, not lateral transfer.


Intelligent designers can be quite a lot faster as they can discard a lot of unpromising prototypes at the drawing board stage, and only test the few that seem to be especially promising.  And they can also import solutions from one design line (e.g. an electric motor) into another (e.g. a car). 

Again this is obviously true, and Dave would not dispute it, surely.  After all, he prides himself on taking solutions from one design (car battery) and using it to power something quite different (a winch) which he then uses to do something from yet another line - tow a cage around a field.


But it does mean that their designs are a lot less complicated and sophisticated than living machines.  Basically "intelligent designers" are living machines that have figured out a quick'n'dirty way of making very crude machines that will serve their own purposes.  But the machines they make, although wonderful in many ways, are inevitably much less complicated and sophisticated than living machines themselves, which have been so exquisitely optimised for successful self-reproduction by virtue of that very capacity for self-reproduction.

Perhaps this is the part that Dave thinks is "preaching".  But then it's the part he actually agreed with!  The part that said that man-made machines were a lot less complicated and sophisticated.

so :dunno:
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29480
so :dunno:

so, basically, Hawkins is an IKYABWAI machine.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29481
oh good God you're quibbling that maybe proteins are real machines but organisms are not? Give me a freaking break.

It's not a quibble at all.  If you'd actually read my goat post you'd see the difference.

A goat is not a machine for doing anything except making more goats.  It doesn't serve the purposes of some other entity.  It doesn't do the goat any good to make more goats.  It's a goat-making machine that makes more goats.

However you could argue that the proteins involved in the goat's metabolism are serving the purposes of another entity - the goat.  So you could say the goat uses its enzymes as a machine to help it make more goats.

That is very different from saying the goat is a machine.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29482
"A goat is not a machine for doing anything except making more goats."

 bullshit.

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29483
 that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29484
From 2008:
Quote from: Pingu
By "machines" I mean things that turn energy into work. And by work, in this context, I mean expenditure of energy that serves some function. Notice I do not say purpose here - something can have a function, but no purpose. So a bacterial flagellum is a machine, by my definition, because it turns energy into motility for the bacterium. That doesn't mean that the bacterium harbours anything one might call a purpose to move. Purpose (or intention) requires a brain (IMO).
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
I agree with your "machine" definition I don't know why many posters here have a problem with this.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29485
that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.
Everyone knows the purpose of goats is to provide food and maybe clothing for humans.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29486
that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

Yeah, well, you totally missed the point.

Like these christians who pity atheists for thinking they have no "purpose" in life.  Of course humans have purposes - their own.  And they are complex and fascinating and interesting, and one of them is trying to find out things - curiosity itself.  We just don't think we were brought into existence to fulfill somebody ELSE'S purpose.

The idea that an atheist must feel purposeless is a bit like the idea that a wild goat must feel purposeless.  YOUR purpose in causing your goats to exist (or providing a market for goat breeders anyway) is to drink their milk.  But the fact that you have them for YOUR purpose has nothing to do with THEIR purposes.  Which are probably a bit limited, but wild goats have all kinds of nefarious purposes.

They don't need to serve somebody else's to have a purpose.

The function of "machines" in cells is to help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.  That's the function they are optimized to serve.  If they stop doing that - for instance the organisms that have them no longer live in an environment in which they serve that purpose, then they rapidly become redundant and non-functional.  If they do do that, then any that don't work are rapidly lost from the system.


I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29487
From 2008:
Quote from: Pingu
By "machines" I mean things that turn energy into work. And by work, in this context, I mean expenditure of energy that serves some function. Notice I do not say purpose here - something can have a function, but no purpose. So a bacterial flagellum is a machine, by my definition, because it turns energy into motility for the bacterium. That doesn't mean that the bacterium harbours anything one might call a purpose to move. Purpose (or intention) requires a brain (IMO).
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
I agree with your "machine" definition I don't know why many posters here have a problem with this.

Oh lord.

I had a feeling we'd been here before.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29488
From 2008:
Quote from: Pingu
By "machines" I mean things that turn energy into work. And by work, in this context, I mean expenditure of energy that serves some function. Notice I do not say purpose here - something can have a function, but no purpose. So a bacterial flagellum is a machine, by my definition, because it turns energy into motility for the bacterium. That doesn't mean that the bacterium harbours anything one might call a purpose to move. Purpose (or intention) requires a brain (IMO).
Quote from: Dave Hawkins
I agree with your "machine" definition I don't know why many posters here have a problem with this.

Oh lord.

I had a feeling we'd been here before.
Yep.

:grandpa:
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29489
that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

Yeah, well, you totally missed the point.

Like these christians who pity atheists for thinking they have no "purpose" in life.  Of course humans have purposes - their own.  And they are complex and fascinating and interesting, and one of them is trying to find out things - curiosity itself.  We just don't think we were brought into existence to fulfill somebody ELSE'S purpose.

The idea that an atheist must feel purposeless is a bit like the idea that a wild goat must feel purposeless.  YOUR purpose in causing your goats to exist (or providing a market for goat breeders anyway) is to drink their milk.  But the fact that you have them for YOUR purpose has nothing to do with THEIR purposes.  Which are probably a bit limited, but wild goats have all kinds of nefarious purposes.

They don't need to serve somebody else's to have a purpose.

The function of "machines" in cells is to help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.  That's the function they are optimized to serve.  If they stop doing that - for instance the organisms that have them no longer live in an environment in which they serve that purpose, then they rapidly become redundant and non-functional.  If they do do that, then any that don't work are rapidly lost from the system.



No YOU missed the point.  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.

  • Pingu
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29490
that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

Yeah, well, you totally missed the point.

Like these christians who pity atheists for thinking they have no "purpose" in life.  Of course humans have purposes - their own.  And they are complex and fascinating and interesting, and one of them is trying to find out things - curiosity itself.  We just don't think we were brought into existence to fulfill somebody ELSE'S purpose.

The idea that an atheist must feel purposeless is a bit like the idea that a wild goat must feel purposeless.  YOUR purpose in causing your goats to exist (or providing a market for goat breeders anyway) is to drink their milk.  But the fact that you have them for YOUR purpose has nothing to do with THEIR purposes.  Which are probably a bit limited, but wild goats have all kinds of nefarious purposes.

They don't need to serve somebody else's to have a purpose.

The function of "machines" in cells is to help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.  That's the function they are optimized to serve.  If they stop doing that - for instance the organisms that have them no longer live in an environment in which they serve that purpose, then they rapidly become redundant and non-functional.  If they do do that, then any that don't work are rapidly lost from the system.



No YOU missed the point.  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.

And I agreed!

So not only did you miss the point, you even missed the point of the point!
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29491
Classic Dave. He is a nested hierarchy of missed points layered within missed points. He's a point-missing machine PMM (as that describes one of his limited functions, it is apt to call him this).

For what reason did the Great DesignerTM create Dave to miss so many goddamn points? It's a mystery, I guess.

Our very own PMM has other (unintended) purposes as entertainment, however.
  • Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 01:00:25 PM by Photon

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29492
  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.
When Alberts referred to enzymes as "machines", he was talking about how they have an intricate array of coordinated moving parts that are organized such that they accomplish a particular function.
That's why (preposterously) extending the word "machine" to anything and everything that contains enzymes* doesn't work.
Neither goats nor humans are "designed" (or evolved) to perform some one specific "machine-like" function.  That's why applying the word "machine" to them (in anything like the sense that Alberts used, referring to enzymes) is either stupid, disingenuous, or both.



* And dishonestly attributing that extension to Alberts.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • Zombies!
  • We're in the pipe, five by five.
Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
Reply #29493
    When I need to know the meaning of a word, I look it up in the big book of words.  I have a number of these,  and these dictionaries help us all enjoy a common language.  So Dave,I disagree with your definition.Pingu is reaching out to you, trying to accommodate whatever new language you are trying to invent, but the agreed upon definition looks like the below:
Quote
ma·chine[/list]
    məˈSHēn/[/list]

      noun[/list]
        1.an apparatus using or applying mechanical power and having several parts, each with a definite function and together performing a particular task."a fax machine"apparatus, appliance, device, contraption, contrivance, mechanism, engine, gadget, tool,[/list]
          verb        2.(especially in manufacturing) make or operate on with a machine.
          • "a decoratively machined brass rod"
          ETA, tag hell.  My phone is a terrible tool for tags.[/list][/list]
          • Last Edit: December 13, 2017, 03:04:04 PM by Zombies!
          Dave Hawkins on 11-23-2015, The  poor boy is easily triggered: 
          Also it doesn't help that you are a woman ... I've had some bad experiences with super controlling manipulative women in my life and I now react really strongly to that.

          Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
          Reply #29494
          that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

          Yeah, well, you totally missed the point.

          Like these christians who pity atheists for thinking they have no "purpose" in life.  Of course humans have purposes - their own.  And they are complex and fascinating and interesting, and one of them is trying to find out things - curiosity itself.  We just don't think we were brought into existence to fulfill somebody ELSE'S purpose.

          The idea that an atheist must feel purposeless is a bit like the idea that a wild goat must feel purposeless.  YOUR purpose in causing your goats to exist (or providing a market for goat breeders anyway) is to drink their milk.  But the fact that you have them for YOUR purpose has nothing to do with THEIR purposes.  Which are probably a bit limited, but wild goats have all kinds of nefarious purposes.

          They don't need to serve somebody else's to have a purpose.

          The function of "machines" in cells is to help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.  That's the function they are optimized to serve.  If they stop doing that - for instance the organisms that have them no longer live in an environment in which they serve that purpose, then they rapidly become redundant and non-functional.  If they do do that, then any that don't work are rapidly lost from the system.



          No YOU missed the point.  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.

          And I agreed!

          So not only did you miss the point, you even missed the point of the point!
          only after I corrected you.

          • JonF
          Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
          Reply #29495
          Spoiler (click to show/hide)

          No YOU missed the point.  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.
          "Function" and "purpose" are not synonyms.
          "I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

          • Pingu
          Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
          Reply #29496
          that's about as insensitive and incurious as me saying that humans have no purpose other than  to produce more humans.

          Yeah, well, you totally missed the point.

          Like these christians who pity atheists for thinking they have no "purpose" in life.  Of course humans have purposes - their own.  And they are complex and fascinating and interesting, and one of them is trying to find out things - curiosity itself.  We just don't think we were brought into existence to fulfill somebody ELSE'S purpose.

          The idea that an atheist must feel purposeless is a bit like the idea that a wild goat must feel purposeless.  YOUR purpose in causing your goats to exist (or providing a market for goat breeders anyway) is to drink their milk.  But the fact that you have them for YOUR purpose has nothing to do with THEIR purposes.  Which are probably a bit limited, but wild goats have all kinds of nefarious purposes.

          They don't need to serve somebody else's to have a purpose.

          The function of "machines" in cells is to help the organism survive long enough to reproduce.  That's the function they are optimized to serve.  If they stop doing that - for instance the organisms that have them no longer live in an environment in which they serve that purpose, then they rapidly become redundant and non-functional.  If they do do that, then any that don't work are rapidly lost from the system.



          No YOU missed the point.  I'm saying that goats - like humans - have more functions (purposes) than reproducing.

          And I agreed!

          So not only did you miss the point, you even missed the point of the point!
          only after I corrected you.

          Try reading the post a few hundred times until the point sinks in.
          I have a Darwin-debased mind.

          • RickB
          Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
          Reply #29497
          Just a simple question, Dave.

          How would you switch off your "bio-machine"?

          Just about every real (human designed) machine can be switched off.  Can your "bio-machines"? And if so. how?


          • VoxRat
          • wtactualf
          Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
          Reply #29498
          but in asserting this I am not asserting that "therefore they necessarily were designed by intelligent entity."  they might have been, and I happen to believe they were, but simply "being actual  really for really real machines" does not in and of itself require this.
          So back in 2008, it was: Alberts called enzymes* "machines", therefore they ARE machines, with all the attributes of ALL machines, therefore Goddidit.
          This time 'round, it's:  Alberts called (something biogical) "machines", therefore ... well ... er ... Reductionism!!1!... or...
          Hey! What's that shiny thing? Over there!

          * not organisms; the difference between an enzyme and an organism is quite a bit more than a "quibble".  Except maybe to an extreme Dunning-Kruger case, to whom they might be "words you hear in a biology class... whatever".
          "I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

          • borealis
          • Administrator
          Re: Economics of "Saving Agriculture" (Thereby Saving the World)
          Reply #29499
          You have to wonder if Dave likes to think living things are 'biological machines' (except for humans who have a higher purpose or something)) because that way it doesn't matter if his animals suffer or die, or he kills a lot of rare plants, or destroys existing biomes in his quest to turn the planet into cow pasture.