4 ms·

This argument is twisted out of shape. Basically, you're saying that keiferski is making the claim "we don't know whether cells are machines", which he should

This argument is twisted out of shape. Basically, you're saying that keiferski is making the claim "we don't know whether cells are machines", which he should prove. When, in fact, we actually don't know and it is you who is proposing the added hypothesis that they are. I understand that it seems to you very likely that cells are machines, but that's just your feeling. You're the one making a claim and your arguments are not convincing to everybody, so that's that, there's not much more to add really.

Udo 7y ago
> This argument is twisted out of shape. That's true. > Basically, you're saying that keiferski is making the claim "we don't know whether cells are machines", which he should prove. No. He/she challenged me, repeatedly, to prove my assumption that we're talking about machinery, which he/she called foolish and handwavy. I take the position that my assumption is in line with current understanding, and that the entirety of modern biochemistry is based on and working with that assumption. keiferski holds that I'm ignorant for taking that position, implying that wide and extraordinary counter claims of something paranatural going on with minds should be considered reasonable until explicitly disproven. The basic difference of opinion is - as I understand it - what the default position should be.