No, I don't think we have agreed, since we don't have a definition of "robot" yet. What is, and by extension, isn't a "robot"?
In what way is an artificial penguin "identical" to a real penguin?
How do we know that a robot has been designed?
Well, that's simply not true. A bunch of rocks placed in concentric circles, for example, is less complex than a pile of rocks that was knocked over and landed randomly. Good design simplifies. I don't see that complexity is necessarily indicative of design, let alone good design.
There may not be a perfect definition, but for the sake of this discussion, there needs to be "a" definition or else we won't be talking about the same thing.
Are you defining "robot" to mean "an artificial human"? And, no, not necessarily - because a mannequin is an artificial human without being a robot and a robotic arm that assembles car parts is a robot without being a human. An example is not a definition.
That's too vague. "Any physical way" encompasses trivial ways (eg. appearing to have beak or unable to fly) and doesn't necessarily include anything essential.
A knocked over pile of rocks has a very low chance of each individual rock landing in exactly the position it did and in relation to every other rock in the pile.
So that which is complex cannot form naturally, and complexity is defined as that which cannot form naturally. And round and round we go.
An electronic machine built out of pre-existing parts that performs repetitive functions controlled by a program, mindlessly. What is your definition? I've asked you repeatedly but you only give me tentative examples instead of a definition.
No, only metaphorically.
Only because it happened. The chance of it happening just like that before it happened is not 1 or anywhere close to 1.
No, you misunderstand - not "any combination" but that particular combination.
How did you arrive at that number, "only a few out of billions"? In any case, that is greater than 1 out of billions, which is my scenario, that each rock must be precisely where it fell.
Where did I say that? A machine can be made by another machine - the example of a robotic arm assembling an automobile: they are both machines.
I've been trying to focus on that, but you still haven't defined your terms. What the definition of "robot" that you want to use for your main argument?
How are you defining "robot"? I've asked you a dozen times already, but you still have not provided a definition, just tentative examples.
Which is what?
I didn't ask for a perfect definition. I've been asking for "a" definition for the sake of argument. What definition are you using?
Please answer my one question before asking me any more. It's rude to keep avoiding over and over and over and over.
