Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Does form follow function?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 20
Does form follow function?Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
Thanks, fishalways. That put a large questionmark out of my mind.

I am still having trouble with the assignment of "philosophy" to Sullivan's statement.

I have problems accepting it as philosophy, for when Sullivan says "form follows function" and it is put into the context of what he meant, it becomes a tautology. Of course form follows funciton, if you look at it that way. If something is useless, then its form is necessarily wrong, i.e. its form renders it useless. This is not philosophy, it is not genius. It is naming something a five year old child can see.

Not all obvious things are tautologies, and not all tautologies are obvious. But all tautologies are useless from a practical sense, and all tautologies are useless from any sense other than their role and function in logical deductions. With this I mean that if someone names a theorem, and it looks ridiculous or unprovable, then the only way to prove it is to reduce the elements of a theory with only logically sound transformations into a tautology, to prove the truth of the original theorem. THIS is the only acceptable useful function of a tautology, in philosophy or in other human endeavours.

To build a following on a man who uttered a tautology is a dangerous example. I can say "trees are green or not green" or I can say "Sullivan uttered a tautology or else he did not utter a tautology" and I become world famous, as per the example of Sullivan. Suddenly the world is populated by world famous people only, since tautologies abound, and they are rather very easy to manufacture. So everyone is famous, which means everyone is outstanding, which means that the word "outstanding" has lost its meaning.

I warn those who think Sullivan was a visionary that their stance potentially creates destruction of our cultural and social structures, at least in part, and therefore I ask the same people to please reconsider their stance on this matter.

Oh, and I had a good night's sleep, thanks for asking.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 21
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 7:32:34 AM


All fetuses start out as girls, which is why men have nipples, so it's not really a good example.


I have heard this theory before and have repeated without thinking about it but the sex of the foeti is determined by the sperm at conception...surely logic dictates that you cannot start out XX (female) then hormones change you to an XY (male).

You are either 1 or the other.


Not necessarily, because final gender specification in the fetus doesn't occur until several weeks into the pregnancy and, until that time, you would be hard pressed to tell the gender from a simple visual inspection. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that either is possible up until the right genes turn on at the right time. In the meantime, the fetus is potentially either. The fact that hermaphroditism can occur indicates that there can be "mistakes" or miscues in the process. It certainly indicates that it isn't an either/or thing.

Additionally, not all vertebrates gestate the same way. Crocodilians rely on temperature to determine the sex of their offspring and not genetics.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 22
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 7:53:18 AM
"Therefore, it makes perfect sense that either is possible up until the right genes turn on at the right time. "

This makes sense only if it is true that XX and XY chromosome pairs are immaterial in the gender determination. This, in turn, is true only if male sexual organs capable of full male sexual function in reproductive capacities can develop on an embrio which contains ONLY XX chromosome pairs in all its cells.

This is a question which can be decided only by observation.

A true hermaphrodite is not capable of poducing offspring, in the role of female or male just the same.

I suggest that we accept, FOR THE SAKE OF THIS DISCUSSION ONLY, that a male is one which can perform successfully in the role of a male in a sexual reproduction, and a female is one which can perform successfully in the role of a female in a sexual reproduction.

A visual inspection is not a proof of "anything can happen later on", as you stated. The opposite is not true either, but your claim is clearly false. If it were true, it would follow that a human embrio could potentially develop into a pig or a rat, since prior to the fifth day past insemination, visual inspection can detect no difference between human embrios, pig embrios and rat embrios. While philosophically speaking it is possible, no empirical evidence has been shown that this would actually happen. So visual inspection showing no differences does not make the embrio indeterminant for gender, as much as for species; other things that we can detect ARE determinant, for instance the chromosome pairs XX or XY in the cells of the embrio.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 23
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 7:57:35 AM
"Therefore, it makes perfect sense that either is possible up until the right genes turn on at the right time. "

What I meant to say was that it is possible and I believe it true, that the right genes can NOT turn up for a female if the human embrio contains in all its cells XY chromosomes. The XY excludes even the possibility of such genes to turn on at any time, since those genes are not included in the genome, and what's not there, can't turn on.

I would say, however, that men have nipples coz X, singly or doubly as a chromosome, is sufficiently responsible for making the embrio develop nipples. This does NOT mean the embrio is female, it just shows that the genes responsible for nipple development reside on the X chromosome, or, maybe, on any of the other chromosomes, outside of XX and XY pairs.

After all, non-mammals have XX and XY choromosome pairs, yet they don't have nipples.

The protein sequence for nipple creation could be located anywhere, really, on any chromosome, except for sure not on the Y chromosome, that is what we can say on the matter with any degree of certainty from where we sit, ie., having the education and knowledge we each on this forum have on the topic of genetics.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 24
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 9:40:27 AM

This makes sense only if it is true that XX and XY chromosome pairs are immaterial in the gender determination. This, in turn, is true only if male sexual organs capable of full male sexual function in reproductive capacities can develop on an embrio which contains ONLY XX chromosome pairs in all its cells.


True enough, however, I did not say that chromosome structure was immaterial to gender determination. What I said was that gender determination occurs at a specific point in gestation. Therefore, rather than have one form for males and one form for females, it is easier and more efficient from a developmental standpoint to start from a base form and work out from there. That's where the genetics kick in. It has the coding for when to turn on what for that final specified gender.


A visual inspection is not a proof of "anything can happen later on", as you stated.


Poor choice in words on my part. Again, genetics provides the coding for the process. However, male/female dimorphism occurs at a particular stage of fetal development. In the earlier stages, the sex organs are identical for both genders. The logic behind that should be obvious enough.


A true hermaphrodite is not capable of poducing offspring, in the role of female or male just the same.


Which does nothing to answer the question of why it occurs in the first place. Which would suggest that the developing fetus is developing from a basic architecture. It seems entirely plausible that, in the case of a hermaphrodite, there has been a miscue in the process.


but your claim is clearly false. If it were true, it would follow that a human embrio could potentially develop into a pig or a rat, since prior to the fifth day past insemination, visual inspection can detect no difference between human embrios, pig embrios and rat embrios. While philosophically speaking it is possible, no empirical evidence has been shown that this would actually happen. So visual inspection showing no differences does not make the embrio indeterminant for gender, as much as for species; other things that we can detect ARE determinant, for instance the chromosome pairs XX or XY in the cells of the embrio.


Entirely spurious since that is not what I said or implied. The discussion was about gender. A human embryo and a pig embryo are completely different. However, they do share similar morphologies.


After all, non-mammals have XX and XY choromosome pairs, yet they don't have nipples.


Especially since mammalia are defined in part by their ability to breast feed their offspring.


I would say, however, that men have nipples coz X, singly or doubly as a chromosome, is sufficiently responsible for making the embrio develop nipples. This does NOT mean the embrio is female, it just shows that the genes responsible for nipple development reside on the X chromosome, or, maybe, on any of the other chromosomes, outside of XX and XY pairs.


Makes sense.


The protein sequence for nipple creation could be located anywhere, really, on any chromosome, except for sure not on the Y chromosome, that is what we can say on the matter with any degree of certainty from where we sit, ie., having the education and knowledge we each on this forum have on the topic of genetics.


Read not biologists or embryologists.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 10:50:09 AM
RE Msg: 25 by FoshFish:
I am still having trouble with the assignment of "philosophy" to Sullivan's statement.

I have problems accepting it as philosophy, for when Sullivan says "form follows function" and it is put into the context of what he meant, it becomes a tautology. Of course form follows funciton, if you look at it that way. If something is useless, then its form is necessarily wrong, i.e. its form renders it useless. This is not philosophy, it is not genius. It is naming something a five year old child can see.
"Form follows function" is a concept born out of the love for utilitarianism of the early 20th Century Western world, which was the world of Louis Sullivan. Science and technology had developed inventions that had been incredibly useful, like the petroleum-based combustion engine, which led to mass industrialisation. Thus, science and technology had changed things so much, they had seemed to indicate that soon, we would be cured of all diseases thanks to modern medicine, that poverty would soon cease to exist due to mass production of food, that war would disappear in the face of more scientific methods of resolving conflict such as democracy. It did seem to many that the advantages of science and technology were so overwhelming, that it only made sense to make them the only true consideration in all areas, and in architecture as well. Thus, many believed that the best way to design such buildings were according to scientific principles that dictated the best ways to design buildings according to their function. Thus, "form ever follows function".

Louis Sullivan pointed to the birds and other species of the world for example, that birds have wings because they enable one to fly, that even in nature, "form ever follows function".

However, we have now been with the benefits of following science for over 100 years. We now have the evidence of the last 100 years to determine the truth of this hypothesis, and we now know this hypothesis has clearly been wrong in enough cases for it to have been falsified. As much as we try to eliminate all diseases with modern medicine, we now can see that evolution will ensure that new diseases will always develop. We now can see that democracy does not lead to the end of war, as many democratic countries such as our own, have been almost constantly engaged in one war or another in the last 100 years, and war seems set to continue with our countries for at least another 40 years. Poverty is still with us, even in countries such as our own, where we have butter mountains that go unused. Even when it comes to nature, we can see that all sorts of evolutionary developments are there mostly just for show, such as peac0ck feathers, which are mostly just to attract a mate. So it becomes clear, that in nature, and in our attempts to solve our problems, that although science and technology have improved our lives, they have not achieved the goals they were set.

Science and technology are still very useful. They are simply not the panacea that we set them out to be.

The same is true of "form follows function". While it is a useful paradigm, that if you want to design a car, it makes sense to first design a good chassis, and only then decide to adapt it for beauty, the truth is that an ugly car doesn't sell well, no matter how much more mileage we get out of it. The human mind requires beauty and aesthetics just as much as function, and quite often, we will sacrifice function for form.

But why not? What advantage is there in having anything other than the function?

The answer is in the question. If function was a necessity, then we'd have only function, because nothing would work without it, and then, we wouldn't even ask the question at all, because nothing else would exist. So, to have the question, to have the idea, means that the alternative is possible, that one can use a semi-dysfunctional car or building, and still get things done.

However, what then IS necessary for us to continue using a car or other object? That which allows us to keep the car or building being used. The essential problem is dynamism, that needs change all the time. The brain doesn't recollect long-term goals as much as short-term goals. So while a functional car will give one lower costs in the long run, the most immediate concern, is one's short-term goals, if one gets something from the car this moment, such as the pleasure one gets from looking at a beautiful car.

The same is true of many things:

1)Pleasure in sex is unnecessary for having children. But without it, many of us would probably avoid sex to avoid having to deal with the difficulties of raising children. Sexual pleasure ensures that one has a short-term goal to focus on, that keeps us doing the things that get us to the long-term goal.

2) An ugly ex-hooker is probably the best in bed. But most guys would prefer a good-looking woman who is not that good at sex, because you have to want to be around her BEFORE the sex, and that requires you have something to keep you around, like the pleasure of looking at beauty.

3) A beautiful house is not functional either. But a house requires regular maintenance, or it breaks down, and can no longer serve its function. It takes a while before dry rot or damp destroy the supporting beams to the extent that the house becomes unliveable. But a damp patch on the wall ruins a beautiful house. So beauty in a house motivates one to keep the house in good condition, which keeps the house able to continue to be used.

4) Evolutionary traits, like peac0ck feathers are not directly functional. Their only use is to attract mates. But that keeps the species going.

5) Even then, there are probably better ways to attract a mate than having colourful feathers. However, by the time a peac0ck has come up with a better one, all the best females could be taken. So time constraints come into it, judge what will keep the species going.

Thus, it is more accurate to say:

Form ever follows that which encourages us to keep the form in existence.

"Function" is ONE part of that, for a large reason for owning a car, is that it goes somewhere. But then again, if you are homeless, and your car is out of petrol, it's not any good for transport, but it will keep a roof over your head, so why not just live in that till you get yourself a new place? So "function" is NOT the main consideration, but why you need the function in the first place, to have a reason to continue to have the form to exist.
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 26
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/19/2010 6:18:31 PM
Louis Sullivan pointed to the birds and other species of the world for example, that birds have wings because they enable one to fly, that even in nature, "form ever follows function".



The great inversion of Darwin, what McKenzie calls his strange inversion of reasoning, was when Darwin realized that you have a bottom-up theory of creativity, that all the wonderful design that we see in the biosphere could be the products, direct or indirect of a mindless, purposeless process, and this simply inverts an idea that I think is as old as our species, maybe older in a certain sense, and that is what you might call the top-down theory of creativity: it takes a big fancy thing to make a less fancy thing.

Potters make pots. You never see a pot making a potter. You never see a horseshoe making a blacksmith. It is always big fancy, wise, wonderful things making lesser things.

And so, here we are, we are pretty wonderful: we must be made by something more wonderful still and it's got to be like us, it's got to be the intelligent artificer.

It's very scarey for people to give that up, and to begin to think about how our importance doesn't depend on the importance of something still more important. That is, not of that sort.

I mean on the one hand I think that a good bumper-sticker recipe for happiness is find something more important than yourself to think about and worry about.

There are many such things that we can find to replace the one big important thing which many people think they have, which is God.

http://tristram.squarespace.com/home/2009/1/6/darwins-strange-inversion-of-reasoning.html


Here is a great video explanation.

Dan Dennett: Cute, sexy, sweet, funny

Why are babies cute? Why is cake sweet? Philosopher Dan Dennett has answers you wouldn't expect, as he shares evolution's counterintuitive reasoning on cute, sweet and sexy things (plus a new theory from Matthew Hurley on why jokes are funny).

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_dennett_cute_sexy_sweet_funny.html






...As much as we try to eliminate all diseases with modern medicine, we now can see that evolution will ensure that new diseases will always develop...

That has always been a sticking point for me.

I am sure I am not the only guy that understands that man can not improve nature.

We now know that the best forest management is to leave it alone and let nature take her course.

They found out if they try and hold back disease and or fire then ended up with great dead lose.


For a species to thrive it must have turn over.

We are artificially slowing our turn over down, while we are accelerating out greatest threat. (bacteria, through the use antibiotics and antibacterial soaps, cleaners which are not any more affective than plain old soap and IMO proof that most people are stupid)

The only problem is, bacteria live a few minutes to a few hours, so mutations will come must faster and stronger.

What takes us a few thousand years, bactreria can do in a few years.

So at some point medical science will run out of fingers to plug the dike.


Our greed for self preservation will be our ultimate downfall.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 27
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/20/2010 10:00:54 PM
For a species to thrive it must have turn over.

For a species to die out, it must have a turnover.

Species each have turnovers, no matter what. The poor living, they die, and give birth or otherwise reproduce before they die. That in and by itself does not necessitate any survival value, pro or con.

Your analogy with the intuitive thought of "pot never making the potter" as an example of (invalid) criticism of Darwin's evolutionary theory, is powerful, though. I like it, I may use it.

The random creation of complexity, incidentally, can be extended into other theories, purely philosophical, which prove that making a decision or a choice is a mere illusion, and that determinism, when the concept is applied stringently, excludes the possibitlity of a deterministic universe. It's a funny theory, it uses I think one assumption which is not necessarily true.

"So at some point medical science will run out of fingers to plug the dike."
Other than pessimistic, this statement has no value, certainly no predictive value. Maybe yes, maybe no. Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. Maybe things will go it predicts, and maybe things will not go that way. This is the type of thing we, humans, can't determine ahead of time for sure, pro or con. The future.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/21/2010 6:41:54 AM
RE Msg: 31 by FrankNStein902:
The great inversion of Darwin, what McKenzie calls his strange inversion of reasoning, was when Darwin realized that you have a bottom-up theory of creativity, that all the wonderful design that we see in the biosphere could be the products, direct or indirect of a mindless, purposeless process, and this simply inverts an idea that I think is as old as our species, maybe older in a certain sense, and that is what you might call the top-down theory of creativity: it takes a big fancy thing to make a less fancy thing.

Potters make pots. You never see a pot making a potter. You never see a horseshoe making a blacksmith. It is always big fancy, wise, wonderful things making lesser things.

And so, here we are, we are pretty wonderful: we must be made by something more wonderful still and it's got to be like us, it's got to be the intelligent artificer.

It's very scarey for people to give that up, and to begin to think about how our importance doesn't depend on the importance of something still more important. That is, not of that sort.
Emergence sometimes happens, and maybe it happens within biological development of species.

However, there is another tendency that people like to cling on to, that they are smarter than their parents, and by extension, than previous generations as well. We all like to think we know it all. But it's rarely the case that we know or act better than our parents did. We usually don't like to accept that, because it forces us to accept that we don't have all the answers. Usually it's bitter experience that convinces us to drop that illusion.

There are many such things that we can find to replace the one big important thing which many people think they have, which is God.
There could be. However, finding an alternative still doesn't invalidate the great value of other people's values. It only gives one a reason to tempt one to think one is superior to others who don't follow your view.


...As much as we try to eliminate all diseases with modern medicine, we now can see that evolution will ensure that new diseases will always develop...
That has always been a sticking point for me.

I am sure I am not the only guy that understands that man can not improve nature.

We now know that the best forest management is to leave it alone and let nature take her course.

They found out if they try and hold back disease and or fire then ended up with great dead lose.
This is another example, of the tendency of people to believe they know more than their parents and earlier ancestors. Yet again, we only found out by bitter experience, that we are silly to just drop everything our ancestors believed, just because we had found an alternative, without having thought out all the consequences of changing our behaviour.

Our greed for self preservation will be our ultimate downfall.
Exactly. It's not our desire for self-preservation that is the problem. It's our GREED for it, our desire to continue our lives as long as possible, using what we have come up with, no matter what the other consequences might be, that causes our ultimate downfall. Put another way "pride comes before a fall", pride, our belief in our own ability to solve every problem ourselves, and that our answers are the best ones, not listening to the advice of others, that causes us the greater hardships in life.

On topic, this too applies, because form often follows function, and so if we come up with that as an idea, it can be useful, but it's not the only thing that is true, and to focus on our idea, to the detriment of everything else, will just cause us more headaches than our ideas are worth.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/21/2010 9:05:46 PM
"Potters make pots. You never see a pot making a potter."

The pots he made make him a potter. No pots = no potter made.


******************************************************************************

 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 30
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/22/2010 10:43:24 PM

So why would a XY chromosome (Y being less information) carry the information for nipples?


Well, are we even sure that the X or Y chromosome even carry the nipple information? Maybe it's someplace else. Also, why would it be form and by result function-fitting not to have nipples on men? I'm sure a no nippled man would look rather strange and might have a tougher time finding a mate as a result.

Function follows form.
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 31
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/23/2010 8:46:49 AM
Oh good, Frank Wright gets mentioned. He was wrong. http://thinkexist.com/quotation/form_follows_function-that_has_been_misunderstood/206279.html

Called it a spiritual union... BS! Frank... He used it as a pick up line to score jobs.
I'm glad we got some thinkers chiming in now. :)
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 32
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/23/2010 8:59:42 AM
The quote from from FLW:
“Form follows function - that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union.”

Hmmmmm, Sullivan point blank calls it a law of the universe, and Frank just suggest that is should be joined in a spiritual union, accuses humanity of "not getting it" and think of it as one . "One" does not exist.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 33
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/25/2010 7:59:31 PM
"Maybe it's someplace else. Also, why would it be form and by result function-fitting not to have nipples on men?"

I agree, on both counts.

Instead of trying to explain why I agree, I say this: This form-function chase is a wild goose chase, as it has nothing to do with anything. The nipple thing is the result of a random mutation that happened on a non-Y chromosome. Why try to attach a form-function followance to it? Crazy, if you ask me.

It's like trying to explain the universe's every expression by saying one is the call of the horny horned owl, the other one is the lullabi of Ghosts Ancients Passed.

Why???? Why??? I really don't see any sense in this. I am here to fight anyone who are still serious about it.

I think the allure lies deeply if you take for granted the form-function followance, and then try to explain things. "Oo... men have nipples. It is wrong for men to have nipples. It does not correspond either to the form follows function theory, or to the function follows form theory." Well, guess why. Both theories are wrong. If a single occurrance destroys a theory's logic, the theory is itself destroyed. If an observed fact contradicts the teaching of a theory, then the theory is false.

So both theories "forms follow function" and "functions follow forms" are wrong.

This brings us to a psychological-scientific issue: What type of personality is so enamoured with a theory that he will believe it despite all evidence to the contrary, and possible despite the theory not making sense in the first place?

This is a valid question. Many people followed the teachings of the form-function followance theories. It was stupid, the theory, in the first place, a normal and reasonably intelligent five-year old could see that. Yet, very smart, eminent and learned people believed it was true. What was in this theory that grabbed so many people for so long a time?

What is it about Atlantis, about the Inkas' calendar, about the Kaba, about astrology and tarot cards, that make men and women swoon? I am sorry, this is so far removed from me that I can't even begin to understand it. It is an issue of emotional stance, not an issue of intellect or of philosophical attitude. My lover for 34 years has been a strong believer in astrology and assorted stuff, yet she is a very smart woman. I have stuck it out with her, she with me, so there is obviously some harmony, some understanding, some mystique too, to the day. Despite our bitter wars on the validty of astrology that had gone on for two decades, until we smartened up and decided to just simply stay clear of the issue. Why is she a believer in this stuff? Why am I not?

I am sure the DSM has some passages on this. Can someone please point me to them?

I am not decrying the validity of astrology, form function followance, or god. I believe every philosophical system is valid, and it's a matter of personal choice which is the one that a person makes his own. I can understand belief and faith in an almighty. But I can't understand belief in astrology and New Age an Feng Sushi.

And the proximity of thoughts and of arguments' topics doesn't help a bit, either.

MMMMggggh....!!!!
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 34
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/25/2010 8:13:04 PM
Like this one:

"One" does not exist.

Is this poetry? why is this quote immediately and obviously true for some, and why does it stump me as a sentence that has no sense?

It has sense. I don't see it, but that does not mean it has no sense.

I am now tending toward thinking that some mutation happened some time ago that made this schizm in humans. One finds some sense in something which the other can't even begin to see or understand. Yeah. That must be it.

I tell you, it's like the world separated into two kinds of people due to a mutation, and neither the mutants nor the non-mutants have an evolutionary advantage, so they both grow their numbers the same way. For example, people who can smell a rose or a carcass or blood or a roast beef with garlic, and people who can't smell these. "Oh, what a lovely smell, it makes me hungry!" and the lady of the house finds this an empty and false compliment, coz she's in the group that can't smell roast beef with garlic.

I can argue against someone who says there is a god, and the god is a christian god. I know the concept, I know how it is not fitting reality, and I think all I have to do is point out the ill-fitting parts of my opponent's weltanschauung. But I know what he believes, he knows what I believe, and there is no misunderstandings over the concepts of the issue at hand.

But a New Age guy and I can't argue intelligently. Once I went to a party of Mensans, and I asked, why do people believe in Astrology? The host and his girlfriend looked at each other, and said, with all their conviction, "well.... because they are true? We think so, we know so."

These two people were not stupid, not crazy, not loonie.

I think, I am quite sure now, it's a mutation thing.

Whew, one think thing less to worry about.
 TheCallofCthulhu
Joined: 9/26/2010
Msg: 35
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/26/2010 10:38:53 PM
and here is something else to worry about. :) or just have fun with it.

Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?

The mutants will alway have evolutionary advantage...being a non-mutant would be the definition of no evolution at all. and please as alway correct me if I am wrong, even if is only for the sake of arguement. form follows function...it reads like poetry but sounds mathmatical. Throw in events and chaos...and have you defined space/time in words?

just asking... :)
 FrankNStein902
Joined: 12/26/2009
Msg: 36
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/27/2010 6:18:35 AM
The mutants will alway have evolutionary advantage...being a non-mutant would be the definition of no evolution at all. and please as alway correct me if I am wrong, even if is only for the sake of arguement. form follows function...it reads like poetry but sounds mathmatical. Throw in events and chaos...and have you defined space/time in words?

There is no such thing as a non-mutant.

Every living thing is a mutant to some degree.


I would say with respect to evolution function creates form.

Ergo: We do not like sweet foods because they are sweet, we like them because it was an evolutionary advantage to like them and the ones that did where the ones that had a better chance of moving on and populating the herd.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 37
Does form follow function?
Posted: 11/27/2010 6:01:05 PM
"I would say with respect to evolution function creates form.

Ergo: We do not like sweet foods because they are sweet, we like them because it was an evolutionary advantage to like them and the ones that did where the ones that had a better chance of moving on and populating the herd."

Finally!! somebody said something that makes sense.

Help me out: which is the form in evolution? The advantage? The liking, the sweetess? Populating is a form? or a chance is a form.

So you said the truth, which was, unfortunately, totally unrelated to "form follows funciton", but on these forums we are very forgiving and actually don't give a damn if anyone makes any sesne, as long as their texts contain words, or reasonable facsimiles to them, and then we can argue.

This is a good system, so, obviously, function follows form.

Geeze, I had better stay away from the forums a few days. They are getting to me again.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Does form follow function?