What to Know About Neuralink, Elon Musk’s Brain-Computer Interface Project

[Thumpalumpacus]

Sorry you don't like my answers.

You make the same mistake Republicans make when they are dismissive of complaints about Trump.  I neither like nor dislike your answer.  I do find your answer defective.  If you're fine promoting defective arguments, then keep doing so.  If not, I suggest you see if there is a way to correct those defects.  It isn't a matter of not liking them for purely subjective reasons.  It is a matter of not liking them because they are bad answers.  Just as I can dislike Trump for bad policy and bad acts, without ever exercising any personal animus.

And no, I didn't compare brains and hearts in any sense, analogous or not.  So, stop pulling shit from your ass to defend an argument you supposedly have no interest in pursuing.

You did, however, compare the implant of assistance devices in the two organs, though they're entirely different not only in function but in terms of quality.

And once again, I'm not concerned with changing your mind. You're gonna have to find someone else if you want an argument.

[Dānu]

Sorry you don't like my answers.

You make the same mistake Republicans make when they are dismissive of complaints about Trump.  I neither like nor dislike your answer.  I do find your answer defective.  If you're fine promoting defective arguments, then keep doing so.  If not, I suggest you see if there is a way to correct those defects.  It isn't a matter of not liking them for purely subjective reasons.  It is a matter of not liking them because they are bad answers.  Just as I can dislike Trump for bad policy and bad acts, without ever exercising any personal animus.

And no, I didn't compare brains and hearts in any sense, analogous or not.  So, stop pulling shit from your ass to defend an argument you supposedly have no interest in pursuing.

You did, however, compare the implant of assistance devices in the two organs, though they're entirely different not only in function but in terms of quality.

And once again, I'm not concerned with changing you mind.  You're gonna have to find someone else if you want an argument.

Why would I have to do that, when you seem bound and determined to have the last word?

And again, no, I did not compare the implantation of the two in qualitative terms. I compared the role of the two in your argument in which the effective function of both was valuable and useful. If you want to argue that the effective function of the heart is not valuable and useful to us, then knock yourself out. Otherwise you need to concede the question. Or you can just continue doing what you're doing so that you can show people just how extremely disinterested you are.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And again, no, I did not compare the implantation of the two in qualitative terms.

Exactly my point. You ignored the qualities that make the brain a different sort of organ than your heart.

If you want to argue that the effective function of the heart is not valuable and useful to us, then knock yourself out.

This is a total misunderstanding of my point, and is nothing that I've said or implied.

Or you can just continue doing what you're doing so that you can show people just how extremely disinterested you are.

I'm interested in discussing this. I'm not interested in vituperative arguments. There's a qualitative difference there as well.

[Dānu]

And again, no, I did not compare the implantation of the two in qualitative terms.

Exactly my point. You ignored the qualities that make the brain a different sort of organ than your heart.

If the qualitative differences played no role in my argument, then I didn't ignore any relevant differences. The differences were not relevant, which was your point, and which has been soundly refuted.

If you want to argue that the effective function of the heart is not valuable and useful to us, then knock yourself out.

This is a total misunderstanding of my point, and is nothing that I've said or implied.

I didn't say that it was. It was my point that I was elaborating with what was basically a rhetorical question. Your point was that I was ignoring relevant qualitative differences. My point was that the things you consider relevant qualitative differences don't exist in my argument. Since my argument doesn't depend upon the qualitative differences you highlighted, my ignoring them doesn't render my argument invalid, unsound, or any less effective. And that is a simple fact. So, no, I didn't misunderstand your point, unless you're now going to backtrack and claim that your point had nothing to do with suggesting that I was ignoring relevant differences. But since that was in fact your point, you're shit out of luck. The differences you highlighted were not relevant to my argument, despite your claim that they were. In that you were simply wrong.

And what is with this bullshit with every time I disagree with your points you whine that you have been misunderstood? You either know better than that or you don't. There isn't a great deal of effort required to understand your points, and your "I'm so misunderstood" complaint seems to function in much the same as jerry's evasive equivocations.

Or you can just continue doing what you're doing so that you can show people just how extremely disinterested you are.

I'm interested in discussing this. I'm not interested in vituperative arguments. There's a qualitative difference there as well.

Yes, you've made the same nonsensical semantic quibble before. The more I engage you, the more I realize how much like jerry you are. You're a smarter, slicker product, but you seem cut from the same cloth. That's probably why jerry pushes your buttons so effectively, you see in him things you see in yourself. Regardless, the distinction you are making between discussion and vituperative arguments is simply rhetorical sleight of hand to allow you to press a point when you are arguing effectively, and abandon a point with your dignity supposedly intact when you are not as successful. And in case you want to once again whine about the personal nature of my comments, recall that you just drew first blood by derogatorily labeling my arguments as vituperative. Or, if you want to follow a higher path, you can explain to me in what way you think you've been abused.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes, you've made the same nonsensical semantic quibble before.  The more I engage you, the more I realize how much like jerry you are.  You're a smarter, slicker product, but you seem cut from the same cloth.  That's probably why jerry pushes your buttons so effectively, you see in him things you see in yourself.  Regardless, the distinction you are making between discussion and vituperative arguments is simply rhetorical sleight of hand to allow you to press a point when you are arguing effectively, and abandon a point with your dignity supposedly intact when you are not as successful.  And in case you want to once again whine about the personal nature of my comments, recall that you just drew first blood by derogatorily labeling my arguments as vituperative.  Or, if you want to follow a higher path, you can explain to me in what way you think you've been abused.

You're making my point about discussion vs argumentation for me here, by making what is essentially an ad homeneim attack.

As for your vituperation, just a week or so ago you were giving me the royal treatment, saying I look like a "moron" iirc. I've seen you go that way with others as well. It's not like I just forget those sorts of things, y'know?

That vituperation isn't something I'm interested in today, or most days, for that matter, and certainly not with you, whom I generally respect. I see this discussion, for lack of a better word, unfolding in a similar direction, and don't feel like going that route.

[Dānu]

Yes, you've made the same nonsensical semantic quibble before.  The more I engage you, the more I realize how much like jerry you are.  You're a smarter, slicker product, but you seem cut from the same cloth.  That's probably why jerry pushes your buttons so effectively, you see in him things you see in yourself.  Regardless, the distinction you are making between discussion and vituperative arguments is simply rhetorical sleight of hand to allow you to press a point when you are arguing effectively, and abandon a point with your dignity supposedly intact when you are not as successful.  And in case you want to once again whine about the personal nature of my comments, recall that you just drew first blood by derogatorily labeling my arguments as vituperative.  Or, if you want to follow a higher path, you can explain to me in what way you think you've been abused.

You're making my point about discussion vs argumentation for me here, by making what is essentially an ad homeneim attack.

As for your vituperation, just a week or so ago you were giving me the royal treatment, saying I look like a "moron" iirc. I've seen you go that way with others as well. It's not like I just forget those sorts of things, y'know?

That vituperation isn't something I'm interested in today, or most days, for that matter, and certainly not with you, whom I generally respect. I see this discussion, for lack of a better word, unfolding in a similar direction, and don't feel like going that route.

No, you don't forget them, the embellished version you carry in your mind is apparently quite vivid. I didn't say, generically, that you look like a moron, so, no, you didn't recall correctly. I said that doing what you had just done makes you look like a moron. Because it does. If you want to dispute that point, I'd be more than happy to oblige, but I rather suspect you don't, because in doing so it would be clear that you were ignoring relevant qualitative differences between what I actually said and your misrepresentation of what I said. You say you have a good memory, then remember that a straw man argument is invalid.

And since you seem to be forgetting that an ad hominem is only invalid if it isn't relevant to the points being discussed, let me remind you. Pointing out how your semantic quibble functions much the same as jerry's equivocations in your rhetoric is directly relevant when you are trying to draw a distinction between how I am arguing and how you want people to argue with you, and implying that there is something wrong with my "vituperative" style of argument, as opposed to your "discussion." Observing that they serve the same apparent role in jerry's arguments as your semantic quibble does in yours, namely to disqualify someone for possessing a distinction for which there is no difference, it's directly relevant to the point you were trying to make. I made an observation and an argument from analogy. That is not an ad hominem attack. Quite the contrary, implying that I was angry, bitter, or abusive is in fact an ad hominem attack, and a stupid one. Despite having read my posts for many years, you seem to know fuckall about what you're talking about when it comes to me.

Given the apparent qualitative differences between your memory of things and what they actually were, I'm not incredibly comforted by your claiming to respect me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Okay. Enjoy your afternoon, @Dānu. You do you.

[Dānu]

Okay. Enjoy your afternoon, @Dānu. You do you.

I most likely will, though I haven't formed a firm conclusion as of yet. I'll probably continue making substantive arguments, and you'll keep peppering me with ad hominems, straw men, and dramatic protestations about how immune to having your jimmies rustled you are. Though again, I'm not committing to it at this time.

[Little Lunch]

Can you two dumb it down a little?
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about with all ya big words. :-)