Analogies to Motors

[Nesslig20]

@Rumraket

What a strange way to use the word analogy. To say that something is “no longer analogous” is to say it has become so different in it’s attributes or their degree, they can’t even be analogized.

You misunderstood (though not your fault). Let me clarify. You said that since biological complexes (e.g. flagella) are - by definition - ‘motors’, this means it is not an analogy - rather it is ‘literal’ to say they are motors. However, I object to this by pointing out that putting things under the same category does not mean they are ‘literal’, nor does it negate the fact that they are analogies. This is what I meant to say when I said “no longer analogous”.

Let me reword my previous statement:

@Nesslig20

IMO, you don’t seem to be, given the flawed reason you gave for why you think this is not an analogy. Just because you can define ‘Category A’ to include X, Y and Z, that does not mean X, Y and Z are literal comparisons and not only analogies.

@Rumraket

But I am the one saying they are so much alike that they’re not only analogous, I would go even further and say they are so much alike in these crucial respects that I think they meet the definitions in a way that qualify them to be members of the set.

As I have already pointed out, providing clear explanations with references, at the crucial respects, these are fundamentally NOT alike whatsoever. You inadvertently admit this when you say the following:

@Rumraket

But even despite these many crucial differences between man-made macroscopic machines and objects, and biological molecular machines, I think the category of machine, and motor, are broad enough that biological molecular machines and systems meet enough of the basic requirements to be called, entirely literally, machines or motors.

In one sentence you say they are “so much alike” - yet - what does it mean when you must have a “broad enough” definition in order for the category to encompass biological complexes such that they meet *enough of the basic requirements"? To me, this just furthers my point that the machine analogy only gives attention to few similarities, which we happen to find significant as it makes the object much more familiar to us than they really are. This is a quirk of our heuristics. Whenever we find something we don’t understand, we frequently will compare it with things we do understand (or - at least - with things that seems more familiar to us).

@Rumraket

I understand the point of your argument and what it is based on, I just don’t think it is necessary to argue for a denial that these entities are machines in order to understand how they differ from man-made machines and macroscopic objects in general.

I genuinely don’t believe anything is gained by refusing to call them machines.

I would say that this makes the machine analogy (at the very least) extremely poor and (very often) misleading, since such statements are counter to what they fundamentally are and how they work. Viewing the cell as a machine presents a cognitive hurdle to understanding the true nature of life. Even you yourself admit that it can be misleading. Indeed, it often is.

@Rumraket

But it is obvious to me that one can both understand that they differ from man-made machines and macroscopic objects more generally in crucial ways(and that these characteristics are necessary to understand how they behave and how they evolved), yet also still have sufficiently many characteristics to still be considered machines. I know this is possible because I am a person doing that right now.

Anecdote.

Also, I would say that your understanding may be affected by the misleading machine analogies, at least to some degree, without realizing it. A clear sign of this is when you said that they are “so much alike”, even though they are not.