No Dawkins fans? No New Atheists? No one to stand up for poor Daniel Dennett?
All robots please report to the dance floor
Sort:
Pathetic pandering.
Hey, hapless...
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
If you believe in determinism you must be a robot. To bolster my case I quote Richard Dawkins:
“p. 19 Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots…
This purple passage (a rare—well, fairly rare—indulgence) has been quoted and requoted in gleeful evidence of my rabid ‘genetic determinism’. Part of the problem lies with the popular, but erroneous, associations of the word ‘robot’. We are in the golden age of electronics, and robots are no longer rigidly inflexible morons but are capable of learning, intelligence, and creativity. Ironically, even as long ago as 1920 when Karel Capek coined the word, ‘robots’ were mechanical beings that ended up with human feelings, like falling in love. People who think that robots are by definition more ‘deterministic’ than human beings are muddled (unless they are religious, in which case they might consistently hold that humans have some divine gift of free will denied to mere machines). If, like most of the critics of my ‘lumbering robot’ passage, you are not religious, then face up to the following question. What on earth do you think you are, if not a robot, albeit a very complicated one? I have discussed all this in The Extended Phenotype, pp. 15–17.”
Excerpt From: Richard Dawkins. “The Selfish Gene: 30th Anniversary edition.” iBooks. https://itun.es/us/kNkmU.l
Even if you are not rigidly deterministic, as long as you are not religious, you must be a robot.
Perhaps you might even be a freakazoid:
http://youtu.be/uRo426va26I