Comment by staticassertion
5 days ago
They're shocked that people believe that humans are unique. I explained why that shouldn't be shocking. I think I was pretty charitable here, I gave an alternative option for what they could mean in my very first reply:
> Unless you mean "fundamentally unique" in some way that would persist - like "nothing could ever do what humans do".
> I don't really know what your argument is.
I just said that I think that we have very good reasons for believing that human cognition is unique. The response was seemingly that we don't have enough of an understanding of intelligence to make that judgment. I've stated that I think we do have enough of an understanding of intelligence to make that judgment, and I've appealed to the many advances in relevant feilds.
I still think you're being far too literal, which doesn't make for an interesting conversation.
I'm open to hearing how you think I should be interpreting things. I don't really think I'm being too literal, it certainly hasn't been the case that they've suggested my interpretation is wrong, and I've provided two interpretations (one that I totally grant).
What's the better interpretation of their position?