Posted: Oct 24, 2018 1:27 am
by Thommo
I mean that's three (now four) posts tonight, added together to the seven last night which make no attempt to make a cogent philosophical argument and are instead wholly given over to matters of self-indulgence, self-reflection, self-congratulation or insult.

This is counting from the point at which you expressed offence at the suggestion you weren't taking the topic seriously (as a matter of philosophy that would change the entire world).

I think I can probably glean (although with some degree of uncertainty) that today's usage of "truth mills" probably isn't the "bigoted cunts" one, from your self-reference of the concept, but that doesn't seem to add constructively to any of the open issues that were raised:

What precisely is a truth mill?
When a truth mill is present (negatively) or malfunctioning, how is that to be discerned?
What added value does the concept of a "truth mill" bring?
Why does the assertion that the output of skulls does not depend on the input to them not matter?
Why is the concept of "truth mills" a challenge for evolutionary theory?
Why did you assert (again falsely) that identical brains can think different things?

PS: And I know I'm straying from my attempt to keep this on topic: The fact you felt that Hermit's post, which dripped with sarcasm and was one of the most obvious piss-takes of the entire thread has allegedly led to you pausing for thought genuinely made me spill my drink with laughter. I did wonder whether this was merely some kind of reaction to your realisation that he reported you for offtopic rather than moderator intervention on a personal level too.