Originally posted by aardvarkhomeI'm assuming you understand what the words functional
Your posts have all the appearance of credibility until thy're read.
Please explain, with examples, what you mean by functionally complex.
and complex mean. A chess position can be complex but
it doesn't do anything, a bicycle has complexity and can
in fact do something but not on its own, while a motorcycle
has much greater complexity and does basically very much
the same function as the bicycle, again not on its own
though. Life raises the bar considerably when it comes to
the level of complexity and functions than say motorcycle
and even a jet airplane.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNobody, including you, knows how to tell if something is more or less "functional", "complex" or "functionally complex".
I'm assuming you understand what the words functional
and complex mean. A chess position can be complex but
it doesn't do anything, a bicycle has complexity and can
in fact do something but not on its own, while a motorcycle
has much greater complexity and does basically very much
the same function as the bicycle, again not on its own
though. Life rai ...[text shortened]... to
the level of complexity and functions than say motorcycle
and even a jet airplane.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI see no one knows how to tell if something is more or
Nobody, including you, knows how to tell if something is more or less "functional", "complex" or "functionally complex".
less 'functionally complex' that is right in front of us now,
but some of us do know what occured billions of years ago?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI want to understand where you're coming from, but I can't parse your posts. Read the first sentence in your post above. What is that 'know' doing there? Is that supposed to be 'no', or 'now', or what? Is the 'that' supposed to be a 'than' (but even then it wouldn't make sense). Were you trying to say the following:
I wish I had a nice come back for that mistake, but I don't, my
bad.
Kelly
"I see. No one knows how to tell if something that is in front of us right now is more or less functionally complex, but some of us do know what occured billions of years ago?"
Where the content of this question is supposed to be an entailment of what your interlocutors have said thus far?
Originally posted by bbarrAThousandYoung made the statement, “Nobody, including you, knows how to tell if something is more or less "functional", "complex" or "functionally complex".”
I want to understand where you're coming from, but I can't parse your posts. Read the first sentence in your post above. What is that 'know' doing there? Is that supposed to be 'no', or 'now', or what? Is the 'that' supposed to be a 'than' (but even then it wouldn't make sense). Were you trying to say the following:
"I see. No one knows how to tell if ...[text shortened]... on is supposed to be an entailment of what your interlocutors have said thus far?
My response, as you correctly pointed out, was worded badly, should have been more along the lines of this.
I think it is quite odd that AThousandYoung believes no one can tell if something is more or less functionally complex when it can be right in front of us now, yet believes we can have some understanding on what occurred billions of years ago.
Kelly
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you replace 'can be' with 'is' this almost makes sense.
I think it is quite odd that AThousandYoung believes no one can tell if something is more or less functionally complex when it can be right in front of us now, yet believes we can have some understanding on what occurred billions of years ago.
Kelly
EDIT: In a linguistic sense, the meaning is still crap.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo one can tell how babacoomoofoo something is right now for all to see either. That's because THE WORD IS UNDEFINED. Notice that I don't go around telling you whether it's possible for something to become more babacoomoofoo or not.
AThousandYoung made the statement, “Nobody, including you, knows how to tell if something is more or less "functional", "complex" or "functionally complex".”
My response, as you correctly pointed out, was worded badly, should have been more along the lines of this.
I think it is quite odd that AThousandYoung believes no one can tell if something is mo ...[text shortened]... yet believes we can have some understanding on what occurred billions of years ago.
Kelly
It's not that there is some understood value called "functional complexity" which cannot be measured by people; the term itself means nothing. You're babbling nonsense every time you say "functional complexity".
Originally posted by AThousandYoungYou don't think you can grasp if something is functional or not?
No one can tell how babacoomoofoo something is right now for all to see either. That's because THE WORD IS UNDEFINED. Notice that I don't go around telling you whether it's possible for something to become more babacoomoofoo or not.
It's not that there is some understood value called "functional complexity" which cannot be measured by people; the t ...[text shortened]... elf means nothing. You're babbling nonsense every time you say "functional complexity".
You don't think you can grasp if something is complex or not?
You believe no one can make these judgments?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou cannot measure whether these values increase or decrease because you have not defined the units that one would measure them by. Therefore all your babbling about whether "functional complexity" can increase or decrease or neither under XXX circumstance mean nothing.
You don't think you can grasp if something is functional or not?
You don't think you can grasp if something is complex or not?
You believe no one can make these judgments?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat would it matter? Al one needs to increase the complexity of something is the raw materials and energy. For building life, both are abundant on earth.
You don't think you can grasp if something is functional or not?
You don't think you can grasp if something is complex or not?
You believe no one can make these judgments?
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzKJ avoids that fact by making up something he calls "functional complexity" which is supposedly different than the regular kind.
What would it matter? Al one needs to increase the complexity of something is the raw materials and energy. For building life, both are abundant on earth.