(May 26, 2018 at 10:23 am)Mathilda Wrote: OK so because it's automated reasoning then it's not reasoning because it's reasoning that is automated.
And when I post wikipedia links with "It has been argued that" it can be dismissed but when your wikipedia articles start with "normally considered to be" then it's OK.
Yep got it. You are applying different standards here, equivocating between general and specific laymen definitions and quote mining from wikipedia without understanding what it's talking about.
So business as usual for you.
To be honest I expected you to go down the route of arguing that computers are not calculators which would have been even funnier.
*emphasis mine*
'Automated reasoning' is not the same as 'reasoning' because there is a basically a CAVEAT in front of reasoning... how do you not understand this? Is human reasoning defined as 'automated'?
You claimed that morality is a product of evolution, one cannot be moral without the ability to reason, because morality is the ability to distinguish right from wrong / good from evil; therefore if you claim that morality is a product of evolution, then you'd have to agree the reasoning is a product of evolution.
Would you consider 'automated reasoning' a product of evolution?
As far as "normally considered to be" vs "It has been argued that"
The earth is "normally considered to be" round but "It has been argued that" it is flat.
See the difference?
When it comes to animal morality and reason, you're in the "it has been argued that animals posses both of those qualities" group...
