No they aren’t. A human being is not identical to a robot built to resemble a human being.
And once the thin layer of flesh that covered the Terminator was burned off, it was pretty clear that it was a robot.
but i said that they are identical from a physical perspective. so they are not look different at all. they look the same.
Give me an actual example of this.
Scrolling up to see what Sal actually said earlier:
“Very similar” has somehow, over the course of several posts, become “identical”.
Yet another creationist canard exposed via scrollbar.
its a theoretical question. in science we can ask theoretical question too.
actually the opposite is true. here is what i actually said:
“so according to this definition if we will see something that is identical to a robot evolve by a natural process- we cant call it a robot since it was not made by man”
That’s not the same thing as a robot that has been made to look like a human. Nice try, though.
sure and i never said otherwise. so again: by that definition something that is physically identical to a robot isnt a robot. but it make no sense.
A robot is, by definition, a machine built by someone.
If an object was not built by someone, but rather evolved thru undirected processes, it is not a robot.
It would just be something that so closely resembles a robot we cannot tell it isn’t one. But it is still not a robot.
By the same reasoning, a fake painting that is claimed to be a Rembrandt is not a Rembrandt, even if the forger is so skillful that no one can tell it is a forgery.
but i said that its physically identical. it means that its look the same. so you are bactially saying that something that is physically identical to a robot isnt a robot.
its true. because in this case you are talking about specific paint. but both are still a paint. right?
Yes. Just like something physically identical to a Rembrandt is not a Rembrandt if Rembrandt didn’t paint it.
but is it a paint or not?
Yes, it is paint. Paintings are made with paint.
Paintings not made by Rembrandt are not Rembrandts.
if its still a paint then why something that is physicaly identical to a robot isnt a robot?
I’ve explained is well as I can. I’m not going to try anymore.
Just try figure out why, when a painting that was once thought to be a Rembrandt is revealed to be a forgery, it’s value drops drastically. Hint: It’s not because it was not created with paint.
robots are objects. Things physically identical to robots are objects.
if its still a objec then why something that is physically identical to a Rembrandt isnt a Rembrandt?
and they arent robots if they were made by a natural process?
You can ask the question as many times as you want. The answer remains the same.
Do you think a three sided figure is a square if it is identical to a square except that it has three sides?