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.
It's a robot, because it is automated and programmable.
We draw the line at machines that can't perform their function automatically or be programmed. It's a fairly cut and dry distinction, really.
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.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?
Simple device. a dimmer switch is also an example.I can set the temperature settings on my refrigerator/freezer too by the way. Is it a simple device or a robot?
because definitions are very problematic. try to define a robot and i will show you why.
how do you know (when you see a robot) that its not a toaster?
so we cant identify that this is a car till we will define what is a car?:If you cant define it, you couldnt know how to identify one. Sorry.
Ok, this is a robot
a toaster is a robot? so a robot is a toaster too?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.
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.
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.
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.its not a dafinition. you just showed me an image of a robot.
He can't define 'robot' because that would scupper his never-ending attempts at argument-by-equivocation.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.
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.
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.
Yes, it is. Any argument by equivocation is pathetic.Is it?
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?
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?
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?