Analogies to Motors

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Nesslig20

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’

Literal examples, is the term I used. They are examples of machines, or motors, not just analogous to them.

@Nesslig20

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.

That is a very confused statement I’m sorry to have to tell you.

Category A is supposed to be machines, right? The set of things we call machines. Things included in the set of machines is X, Y, and Z.

X, Y, and Z are supposed to be members of the set, they are not “comparisons” or “analogies”. X, Y, and Z can be analogous to, or they can be compared to some other things C, D, E, or whatever, but the members of category A(machines) is not a “literal comparison” or “only analogies”.

That doesn’t parse meaningfully into English.

@Nesslig20

@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

None of which contain a survey of the definitions of a machine.

@Nesslig20

at the crucial respects, these are fundamentally NOT alike whatsoever.

But that is just outright and demonstrably incorrect. You can find many simple and straightfoward definitions of a machine in which it is just obvious that these entities meet the requirements of the definition, and nowhere are the properties you characterize as “crucial” part of the definition.

You’re just flat out wrong mate.

@Nesslig20

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"?

It means because there are numerous definitions of the word, and according to several of these definitions that just have a few characteristics that define it which are so broadly encompassing that two entities can differ in many other respects than these, that they can still obviously belong to that same set because they share the actual defining characteristics.

So no, no inadvertent admission is going on there.

The term organism encompasses a huge number of phenomena(all known forms of life are organisms) that are unlike each other in an incredible number of ways, and yet they can all be classified as being organisms by a comparatively small set of defining characteristics even despite the fact the things that are different among any two arbitrarily picked organisms are way more numerous in both number and degree than the things we define them as being organisms by.

@Nesslig20

@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

You’re the one making a machine analogy. I’m the one saying they’re actual examples of machines. I have to assume you didn’t mean the analogy is the misleading one, unless you actually want to abandon even that and not even analogize biological and man-made machines at all.

@Nesslig20

, since such statements are counter to what they fundamentally are and how they work.

But they aren’t counter to what they fundamentally are and how they work as machines, given many perfectly normal definitions of a machine. You don’t get anywhere with these counterfactual assertions.

@Nesslig20

Viewing the cell as a machine presents a cognitive hurdle to understanding the true nature of life.

Yes if you don’t explain the nature of molecular behavior. But then the real problem is such a person haven’t been educated on the nature of behavior at the atomic and molecular level. We don’t somehow magically come to understand the nature of living cells by not using the word machine, you still have to actually do the work of describing how things work at the molecular level.

So it’s entirely possible to both understand that there is a perfectly workable sense in which cells contain entities that are examples of machines, and yet they also have properties that are very unusual and counterintuitive because they’re extremely small.

@Nesslig20

Even you yourself admit that it can be misleading. Indeed, it often is.

I think it can be misleading if you don’t explain how things work at the molecular level.

@Nesslig20

@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.

Meaningless dismissal.

It takes a single example to prove that something is possible. There are even more than one of us here who seem to have to trouble doing this.

@Nesslig20

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.

I would say it is obvious that you are just completely mistaken here when, given various definitions of a machine or motor or what have you, many biological molecular machines meet the definition.