Dave definitely seems to make a mistake a defining thinking in a nonstandard way, but the judge seems to make some mistakes of his own when pointing that out:
“proving” that his definition of thinking is right
Instead I would tell Dave he’s using a nonstandard definition and is possibly fooling himself (and others) into thinking something else was tested as they don’t use the same definition of thinking, and even he probably doesn’t think that way of thinking most of the time. I would suggest he taboos “thinking” and try to figure out exactly what the plant is doing, and exactly what the human is doing, and later he can compare the two.
This is great. Alas, the poor judge is a rhetorical device doomed to never read the sequences. He exists purely to advocate a different sort of wrong view that is commonly held by many folks, though thankfully not by a sizable chunk of folks on this site.
Dave definitely seems to make a mistake a defining thinking in a nonstandard way, but the judge seems to make some mistakes of his own when pointing that out:
“proving” that his definition of thinking is right
talking about the “true meaning” of a word.
It’s similar to #16 in 37 Ways That Words Can Be Wrong.
Instead I would tell Dave he’s using a nonstandard definition and is possibly fooling himself (and others) into thinking something else was tested as they don’t use the same definition of thinking, and even he probably doesn’t think that way of thinking most of the time. I would suggest he taboos “thinking” and try to figure out exactly what the plant is doing, and exactly what the human is doing, and later he can compare the two.
This is great. Alas, the poor judge is a rhetorical device doomed to never read the sequences. He exists purely to advocate a different sort of wrong view that is commonly held by many folks, though thankfully not by a sizable chunk of folks on this site.
Yeah, I suspected that to be the case. In that case it’s fine (I haven’t yet read further to see if his position is criticized as well)