My thoughts on politics

[-1-]

According to Scientism, humans are nothing more than the sum of it parts.

Fine. According to this, would you agree then, that the sum of a woman is better than her whole?

(Originally coined by Paul A. S.)

Collected aphorisms by Paul. A. S. available from -1-. He is my best teacher and my hero. He used to be my friend, as well.

Better and Worse are subjective opinions. It has nothing to do being more or less (or equal to) the sum of the parts.

Your subjective opinion is then what you could provide here. But never mind. I cracked the joke, and pretty well that's where the buck stops for me.

[henry quirk]

"Toasters have feelings, too."

Nope. Like free will, feelings are a fiction. So sez philo.

#

"a robot may follow a program of Wanting Something"

Nope. That's just more fiction, part of a program. So sez philo.

#

"As a robot, he can fail and also succeed."

If a toaster stops toasting, has it failed?

Nope. It's broken, is all. So sez philo.

Now, I think philo is fulla crap...I don't think he believes any of that shit himself, but he's painted himself into a corner and can't get out without eatin' a little humble pie, which he won't do...anyway, if he wants to be a toaster, then I'm gonna treat him like a toaster

[philosopher]

Nope. Like free will, feelings are a fiction. So sez philo.

Now, I think philo is fulla crap...I don't think he believes any of that shit himself, but he's painted himself into a corner and can't get out without eatin' a little humble pie, which he won't do...anyway, if he wants to be a toaster, then I'm gonna treat him like a toaster[/color]

I'm not saying feelings are fiction. I'm saying free will is fiction.

[-1-]

"Toasters have feelings, too."

Nope. Like free will, feelings are a fiction. So sez philo.
No. He denied this accusation by you. But dammit, fiction exists, don't it? Is "War and Peace" by Tolstoy nothing to you?
#

"a robot may follow a program of Wanting Something"

Nope. That's just more fiction, part of a program. So sez philo.
Maybe. I mean, maybe philosopher says that. You haven't pointed out the reference to it, so I don't have to believe you. But it's moot, because being part of a program is real.

#

"As a robot, he can fail and also succeed."

If a toaster stops toasting, has it failed?

Nope. It's broken, is all. So sez philo.
Where does he say that? Point it out. This is a long and crappy thread. You can't just attribute randomly and without references.
Now, I think philo is fulla crap...I don't think he believes any of that shit himself, but he's painted himself into a corner and can't get out without eatin' a little humble pie, which he won't do...anyway, if he wants to be a toaster, then I'm gonna treat him like a toaster.

Red parts and red parts only are words of -1-.

[-1-]

Henry, your attack on philosopher is jumbled, your references are missing and therefore unattributable to philosopher. Some inferences you make are invalid and are outright denied.

Your criticism is invalid because your statements individually are invalid, and altogether disorganized.

Philosophy is a discipline. You can't abandon following the discipline of that discipline. If you do, you look like an obnoxious self-indulging know-it-all.

There are better ways to criticize the thoughts of a feller than how you are doing it.

1. Make sure you only attribute to the criticized those remarks which s/he actually uttered.
2. Show a logical pathway that leads from his/her remarks to absurdity.

There is no other way. If you don't follow this pathway, you sound like a cow who wants to be a philosopher. If you CAN'T follow this pathway, then you should not even say anything.

[henry quirk]

You declared the human individual is a robot....robots don't choose, robots don't feel.

if you're a toaster, you're a toaster.

[henry quirk]

Nope. I'm just takin' philo's assertion...

You are a biological robot, with no free will on your own.

...to its logical conclusion.

[henry quirk]

...I'm not a 'philosopher'...I don't have to be just to unpack philo's assertion and hold him to it.

[henry quirk]

Nope.

[philosopher]

You declared the human individual is a robot....robots don't choose, robots don't feel.

if you're a toaster, you're a toaster.

A biological robot. Biology is more complex than mechanics made of iron and steel.

This means biological robots can feel, if they have evolved as such.

[henry quirk]

Irrelevant.

My kid plays video games and some of the characters are damned convincing in their reactions and responses, but my kid and me, we know they're fictions: the 'people' in the game feel nuthin', think nuthin', choose nuthin'.

They are exactly what you claim we are.

[philosopher]

Irrelevant.

My kid plays video games and some of the characters are damned convincing in their reactions and responses, but my kid and me, we know they're fictions: the 'people' in the game feel nuthin', think nuthin', choose nuthin'.

They are exactly what you claim we are.

No, it is not irrelevant!

The video game characters are products of only non-organic electrical signals turning on and off (creating the 0's and 1's).

Whereas humans which I refer to as biological robots, have tissue, nervous system and they are way more complex than a computer.

This is the reason humans can feel and think and video game characters cannot.

I suggest you take a look at this documentary "Why are we here?" explaining the concept of biological robots/machines.
That we are nothing more than the sum of our parts.

https://www.whyarewehere.tv/about/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOx6ustZ-Vw

[henry quirk]

"The video game characters are products of only non-organic electrical signals turning on and off (creating the 0's and 1's)."

And we (you and me, him and her) are the products of only organic electro-processes (according to you).

We (you and me, him and her) aren't people: we're pre-soylent green.

[Impenitent]

here's to lightly burned bread makers...

-Imp

[Dalek Prime]

My thoughts on politics?

Poly = many.
Ticks = blood-sucking parasites.