> Replication someone else's reasoning isn't reasoning. Otherwise, a book would "reason".
This isn't reasoning. This is a meaningless platitude. Matching the level of reasoning of someone else would inherently be reasoning. Replicating the level of reasoning would be.
> And, yes, most humans fail to reason properly a lot of the time. Any simple probability puzzle shows that.
That is an argument for lowering the bar for assessing whether an entity has the ability to reason, not raising it. Using this as an argument to me is another illustration of poor reasoning. Should I argue that you don't have the ability to reason because I don't think this meets the bar of proper reasoning?
