"The map is not the territory"

Very well stated.

Isn't this the same as #4?

Top comment is pretty much, "this changes my whole theory of nonsense which I just invented." It's a pseudoscientific strawman and I can't believe it was upvoted. As a mechanical engineer I see tons of mechanical components in the human body. Diaphragm pumps, ball and socket joints, pinned joints, tensile supports. None of this makes you a cyborg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong

I did not invent the nonsense, it was implied by the existence of the article itself. If this flea had used some hitherto unknown chemical reaction, there would have been no article. But use a toothed gear-like structure instead, and suddenly it's an article and a post to HN, no less. This implies that it's something special with gears, which I tried to assume in my comment. I tried to present the inherent contradiction in assuming that gears are special by arguing from the reluctant viewpoint of someone who thinks it is true.

Many commenters seemed to think I was asking a question of which of the possibilities was the correct one, and (correctly) answered that the fourth one was correct. This was not my intent, I merely wanted people to reflect on the possibilities and come to their own conclusion.

> As a mechanical engineer I see tons of mechanical components in the human body. Diaphragm pumps, ball and socket joints, pinned joints, tensile supports.

The chemical engineer points at the vast complexity of enzyme catalysed reactions and intricate supply chains of nutrients.

The electrical engineer observes the networked structure of the nervous system, the myriad signal processing pipelines built all from similar, near-standard components, yet ultimately giving rise to consciousness.

...and the civil engineer gets the blame for routing a hazardous waste pipeline through a recreational area.

Evolved creatures are a strange mix of clever hacks and design-by-committe horrors.

http://threepanelsoul.com/2010/07/05/on-design-by-committee/

Physicists think God is a physicist, since everything runs according to simple laws.

Engineers think God is an engineer, because He created order out of chaos, and that's what engineers do.

Programmers think God is a programmer, because where do you think the chaos come from in the first place?

That occurred to me, but I think it's fundamentally different. "False dichotomy" still admits (and IMO implies) the possibility that these are real actual things, but that the same entity can be both.

This is not a false dichotomy, nor is it a true dichotomy, but a misunderstanding of just what concepts like "mechanical" are.