RE: Small post Clarifying a common fallacy here.
February 23, 2009 at 3:01 pm
(February 23, 2009 at 12:37 pm)moodydaniel Wrote: (February 23, 2009 at 11:36 am)Tiberius Wrote: I offer my challenge again, come up with 1 thing humans have made that is more complex than themselves and a method of determining complexity.
It's not perfect but Dawkin's definies something as complex if it has parts that are "arranged in a way that is unlikely to have arisen by chance alone." I'll also assume that the item must be fully functional for it's purpose. I'll also assume by 'themsleves' you meant individuals (as opposed to humanity as a whole), I think that's what you meant.
Technically speaking, everything must have some degree of complexity. The problem I was trying to highlight was how we measure different levels of complexity. Computers can already beat humans in terms of memory and speed, but how do we decide which is more complex. Can the computer come up with new ideas? Can a computer build stuff on it's own?
Quote:An airport when seperated to each indivisible component must rival the number of parts in a human body. It must be equally as unlikely that all the components of a fully working airport could come into existance as a fully formed human could appear naturally. Both are highly speciallised (remove one or two key parts and they stop working) and each is made up of a number of smaller vital parts.
Can an airport repair itself? Does it think? I'm not saying this is proof that airports are less complex than humans, but they are all considerations we must take into account when we decide on a complexity rating. Also, an airport cannot function without humans working it, so is it really more complex or a tool?
