-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
My favorite argument for the existence of God
- Thread starter xianghua
- Start date
- Status
Would a toaster be considered "programmable" because I can set the dark/light setting and then push a single button to get my toast the way I like it? I can set the temperature settings on my refrigerator/freezer too by the way. Is it a simple device or a robot?
Upvote
0
Speedwell
Well-Known Member
- May 11, 2016
- 23,928
- 17,626
- 82
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
The origin of the term is from the Czech word "roboto" which means "compulsory labor." The word was appropriated by a Czech playwrite for a humanoid machine in a 1920 science fiction play. The popular usage has continued to invoke humanoid machines. In our friends usage, it appears to encompass an autonomous machine which resembles any living creature. Engineers have extended the meaning to include any machine which is capable of carrying out a series of complex actions automatically, but I don't think that is what is meant here.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
No, those are manual adjustments. Program adjustments aren't physical switches moving, etc. Although, I am sure you can get a toaster with wifi or something, though unless it puts bread in itself too, it wouldn't be automatic. So, a toaster that you could digitally adjust the settings of that put bread in itself every morning would be a robot.
It would go well with this https://i.imgur.com/pA7IYbU.gif
Simple device. a dimmer switch is also an example.
Upvote
0
Kylie
Defeater of Illogic
- Nov 23, 2013
- 15,069
- 5,309
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, I have a definition of robot which could conceivably include a toaster. A robot can be thought of as a mechanical device programmed to perform a series of actions over and over again. The mechanical arms that put cars together fit this definition, and they are robots. A roomba fits this definition, and it is a robot. And a toaster fits this definition too.
Upvote
0
so we cant identify that this is a car till we will define what is a car?:
image from Ferrari F40 - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
My refrigerator has an automatic ice maker and it puts the water in all by itself if that helps.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Can you program it to adjust the settings?My refrigerator has an automatic ice maker and it puts the water in all by itself if that helps.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
I defined it when conversing with someone else in this same thread, it will be easy to find if you look at the most recent 2 pages. But if you are going to be ridiculously stubborn about posting your own definition of what a robot is, I feel no reason to be a reasonable person towards you. The conversation is too one sided, you have to be willing to give in to reasonable requests for information, or the conversation goes nowhere.
Basically, why should I bother to define what a robot is for you, when you have refused to do it yourself, and you have not stated that you don't know how to define it. That is, you have implied that you do know what a robot is, but refuse to demonstrate said knowledge.
Upvote
0
He can't define 'robot' because that would scupper his never-ending attempts at argument-by-equivocation.
He wants someone to 'admit' that a living creature could, in some circumstances, be described or considered as a robot, upon which he'll gleefully exclaim that they must therefore be designed because robots are designed. It's pathetic.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Yes, it is. Any argument by equivocation is pathetic.
Gates is making a (poor) analogy in an entirely different context; can you see how that not the same as a pathetic argument for design by equivocation?
Upvote
0
Perhaps you're right, but the whole field of astronomy today is one big argument by equivocation (ie. space expansion is supported by Doppler shift observations) and you don't seem to have any problem with it. I think a lot depends on which side of the aisle you're on as to whether it seems like a valid comparison or just a logical fallacy.
Upvote
0
PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Well aware, though if he wanted to do that, he could just come up with a robot definition loose enough that he could then claim that living things could fall under it.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
