Strange that she endorsed your "P2. The soul does not exist."
??? And now with the rather bizarre interpretation, rather than just uncharitable.
All she was confirming was my framing of the argument underpinning her question, a question that effectively asks: "IF P2 is the case then the either you think P1 is false or the conclusion is true. If you don't think the conclusion is true, why is P1 wrong?"
But, heck, you're really just trolling, aren't you.
I am confident that, in reality, she does not endorse that premise. If I were you, I'd be careful about taking her one-line comment "Thank you, Sarkus! You got it right." as applying to the entirety of your post, which she quoted and only replied to with that one line.
In reality, I think she was merely thanking you because you seemed to be taking her side in a battle she felt like she was losing.
Frankly I don't give a shit about what you think her motives are, or that you think she means something different than what she has confirmed it to mean. I'm sorry that what people mean isn't always what you want it to mean, or what you think they should be saying so that it gives you the chance to score points. Sometimes people mean what they say they mean. And I'll accept them at their word until they say otherwise.
And it's not about a battle, JamesR. It's about trying to have discussions with people. And to do that you need to listen to what they have to say, and accept that they mean what they tell you, rather than you try to force your interpretation upon them, just so you can then have a go at beating it down.
The irony is that you don't care a jot about giving Olga your moral support. You have a rather different agenda. The difference between Olga and me, when it comes to you, is that I understand what you're trying to do and why.
It's not about moral support. It's about trying to understand what Olga was trying to say, and about not assuming an uncharitable interpretation when there are other more charitable ones to take. That you can't be bothered to listen to them, and feel the need to insist that people mean what
you want them to mean, is frankly just trolling on your part.
No. My analysis, as usual, is accurate, while yours is more about pretending that the facts are in your favour, because you think that lends support to your agenda.
Oh, good grief. Stop trolling. Stop gaslighting. Stop lying.
Dear readers, when you stop laughing at his Trumpian ego on full show, you'll note that he has offered nothing to actually support that Olga was not confirming my more charitable interpretation, but instead he is just attacking the person. Both people, actually. Ah, well.
Yeah. You're always "just saying". You can't help yourself. You're practically a stalker.
Nah, more like just picking up litter.
Note, dear readers, that I didn't say that. Sarkus wants you to accept his twisted version of what I actually wrote.
Note, dear readers, that when I asked him some on-topic questions, JamesR literally said: "
I'm not interested in having a discussion with you about this, either."
Now, it's true that in the snipped quote of mine I did omit the "
with you", and JamesR's editing does make it seem that I am saying that he doesn't want a discussion
at all on this topic. But, what's that? He omitted some of what I actually typed? Nooo! Say it isn't so! Oh, but that's right: you could just click the link to see what I did write, so that's okay, isn't it? I mean, only posting half of what someone writes, because, I mean, surely the other half doesn't alter the tone, implication, message of the first half, right?
So, dear reader, what I actually wrote was this: "
Note, dear readers, how he doesn't want to have a discussion, yet responds anyway, only to then appear scared to engage in discussion with someone where he might well be out of his depth"
To any reasonable reader it is clear that I am referring to discussion
with me and not to all discussion. E.g. the reference to him responding anyway (
to my post), and only then to appear scared to engage in discussion with someone where he might well be out of his depth - i.e.
me.
But he snipped that part out. Why would he do that, dear reader? Well, JamesR has recent form for only posting bits of what people have said, in an effort to paint that person in a bad light. Shocking, isn't it. I mean, it's not as though he's deliberately looking for things he can only quote half of and then interpret in the most uncharitable light so as to try to score points in his "battle" (or whatever he thinks discussion is supposed to be), is it?
Now, to get this back on topic, and for when you ever want to actually discuss the topic:
What differences do you think there are between an AI robot and a human, assuming the future, as per Olga's first post? You say there are some obvious differences, so they are...? What?
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
