Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lapierre  No wriggling required. Dan is a philosopher. Abstract concepts are their forte, and analogy is an effective means of communicating those abstract concepts. There's no reason to believe that what he said was anything but an analogy. Dan is clearly not naive enough to believe that our bodies are truly made up of microscopic mechanical constructs.
But I don't need to defend Dan. Without a statement from him neither of us can truthfully say what he meant, so he's no support for either of our arguments, how about we agree to disagree? |
Consistency?
Yeh, but Mark, one minute, without a statement from Danny, according to you, who can know what Danny really means (so why even listen), next minute without a statement from Danny, according to you, you do know. The actual facts are, not once did he say 'like', or similar to. I actually watched the thing, and thats not what he said. In fact, he fervently said its all we actually are, repeatedly...robots. The introductory blurb describing his view highlights it. He believes we are robots. There is only reasons to believe it wasn't an analogy.
Robots consist of computers, programs and circuits. And robots have designers, creators. And those creators designs evolve. No accident, no random event. And looking at a robot isn't looking at the designer. Theres nothing to argue about there. But as this demonstrates some people will argue about anything, and will never be open to anything, no matter what, trying to twist anything to fit their closed belief and love of argument.
So robots obviously, factually have designers, and Danny says, we '
are' robots, '
thats all we are', whilst simultaneously mocking those that don't get it. You tell us to listen to Danny, to be enlightened, as it suited your slant on your argument at that moment. So whats the point of dismantling them, robots, no matter how carefully, or how qualified, thinking the designer will be found inside. Obviously the faulty conclusion will be, look we are the best robot dismantlers around and we see how all these bits fit together, even what they do, and we are telling you there is no designer to be found anywhere. So one can't exist. Yet this is the mode you suddenly take when assessing robots when it suits your belief.
Oops thats right, now you claim its all a misunderstanding, Danny never said we are robots.
Then you point out the effectiveness of analogy... yet you point out its an extremely limited, non applicable tool in other posts, again to twist and suit the belief, the all consuming belief.
Its like gyms. There's always the people who stand around arguing. And they love to point out their lack of experiencing results. 'It doesnt work.' Thats their whole workouts. Months and months of arguing in circles. I'm never suprised by their lack of experience. And somehow, in their arguing, they turn the arguing into months and months of going to the gym, of working out.
But back to Danny, and naivity. Here's a guy supposedly knowing how everything works, supposedly supported and recognised by BMW, paying out rip off crooks and charlotans, who next thing blatently is asking for money, for handouts, for him and his side kicks. And judging by the size of his gut, he doesn't look that broke. Then he tells us he's an expert in the human body, how it all works, and he's a walking physical disaster. No idea. A brain needs oxygen and nutrients too. Why some people are clearly naive enough to promote him, or idolise him, who knows.
As I said, I go by example, and all I have here, is an example of inconsistency, back peddling, wiggling and wriggling.