Evolution and the Circle of Life.

[2PhiloVoid]

The idea that all living organisms are descended from a common ancestor is a fundamental concept in the theory of evolution, which describes how species change over time through the processes of natural selection and genetic variation. The circle of life, on the other hand, is a metaphorical concept that describes the interconnectedness of all living things in nature, as well as the cyclical nature of birth, death, and rebirth in ecosystems.

While the two concepts are related in that they both describe the interrelatedness of different living things, they are distinct from each other in terms of their scientific and metaphorical underpinnings. The idea of a common ancestor is based on empirical evidence from fields such as genetics, paleontology, and comparative anatomy, while the circle of life is a poetic or metaphorical way of understanding the complex interactions and dependencies between different organisms in ecosystems.

Since this is a forum section on Physics and Life Science, why are you bringing up this phantasmal "Circle of Life"? What does this have to do with anything 'real'?

More specifically, I don't think the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with "archetypal" symbols, and I'm at pains in figuring out how or why you'd think anyone else should think it does or that it matters.

Now, with that said, if you want to instead talk about the actual science of "trophic levels" as descriptorrs of the energy exchanges which take place between different levels within ecosystems, then that is something useful. Maybe we want to discuss instead aspects of Paul A. Colinveaux's book (1979), Why Big Fierce Animals are Rare? If so, then you'd have something of substance to talk about in this forum.

But bringing esoteric notions from Disney's, The Lion King, into what should be a focus upon hard science in a section of these forums about hard science is really a waste of everyone's time. We're not doing Animism or New Age here ... Or at least, we shouldn't be.

 

[dlamberth]

I play the chatbot all the time. They call this adaptive learning. Usually, I feed in more information that will cause the chatbot to change the statement it is making.

When using Chatbot, I think a bit of honesty should be applied by stating where the text that is copied and pasted originated from.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Then your simulator can take a hike.

Unless reality is indeed a simulation, in which case it actually can't. Sorry. But you're perfectly free to reject the idea if you so desire. I've got no problem with you doing you. In fact I highly encourage it. So long as you don't get too radical in defense of your position I actually think that diversity makes the world a much more interesting place. So as I say, you keep doing you, and I'll keep doing me. Agreed?

And out of curiosity, were you programmed to choose "Christian" as your faith?

I actually don't think so. I think that from a simulator's perspective free will means something entirely different than it does from either a scientific or a philosophical perspective. To me, from a simulator's perspective free will entails a choice, the outcome of which can't be predicted by the underlying programming, and therefore its ultimate cause must lie within the simulation itself. I.E. I have free will.

Now I can understand your bewilderment, how could I put "Christian" in my profile and yet not reject the simulation hypothesis out of hand?

It's because I don't view Christianity the same way that you do, and I don't view the bible the same way that you do. I think that you, and pretty much everyone else has gotten its meaning and purpose completely wrong. I think that the bible actually makes much more sense when viewed from the perspective that reality is a simulation.

I'm a Christian because of the ideals embodied in the person of Jesus Christ, not because of the ideology of the Catholic Church or the derivatives thereof.

But as I said, you do you, and I'll do me. And so long as neither of us feels the need to take up arms against the other we should be fine.

 

[Diamond72]

When using Chatbot, I think a bit of honesty should be applied by stating where the text that is copied and pasted originated from.

The chatbot I use does not give references. The new chatbot on Bing does give references. I would tend to agree though esp when the bots are notorious for using bogus sources. It will be interesting to see how that all works itself out in the school systems. I am sure they will establish a standard and protocols pretty quickly.

 

[Neutral Observer]

When using Chatbot, I think a bit of honesty should be applied by stating where the text that is copied and pasted originated from.

I'm a bit conflicted on this, but not for the same reason that you seem to be.

On the one hand I think that an argument should be evaluated on its merits and not its source. Hence I don't care if its source was a person or a Chatbot.

But it does concern me that people will take credit for ideas that aren't theirs. It's dishonest.

 

[dlamberth]

The chatbot I use does not give references. The new chatbot on Bing does give references. I would tend to agree though esp when the bots are notorious for using bogus sources. It will be interesting to see how that all works itself out in the school systems. I am sure they will establish a standard and protocols pretty quickly.

Chatbot IS the reference of the copy and past presented.

With out acknowledging the reference, we are being totally dishonest about our own lack of knowledge on a subject. And that what we wrote originated elsewhere.

 

[Diamond72]

With out acknowledging the reference, we are being totally dishonest about our own lack of knowledge on a subject. And that what we wrote originated elsewhere

Usually, when someone asks a question I do fresh new research (research the research) to keep up with the latest findings. So I provide people with the most recent up-to-date results. Sometimes it is complicated, so I allow the AI to make things simpler so people can understand at the level they are at. In the same way, we use a grammar checker to help us present information in a clear concise way.

Before Chrome, internet explorer was the only program we had. Bill Gates wanted to ban Google. The government stepped in and forced him to allow Google. This set him back 10 years. NOW he is going after Google. It remains to be seen how successful he will be.

At the same time on android, he is going after Bixby and Alexa. Which should be an easier battle to win. So we will see how this all plays out over the next year. AS I SAID, the new version GPT 4 does give references. This is the program that is a part of Bing. Only the old version GPT 3 did not give the reference.

I would tend to agree that it is much better to know the source to determine how dependable they are. This is why books have footnotes so we know where the information comes from But there are no rules on a board to require people to be held to that standard.

There is an irony with people who refuse to function at a first-grade level but they expect others to perform at a level that is required for a PhD. Maybe they need to start living by their own standard. This sort of double standard does not sit right with me.

My son worked on a program for Pfizer to provide information to the FDA. But he makes good money to provide the FDA the information they want in the way they want it. Pfizer complies because they need FDA approval. Even Pfizer spends huge amounts of money on this.

But I am not making a penny and I do not know why I need your approval.

 

[Diamond72]

Chatbot IS the reference of the copy and past presented.

With out acknowledging the reference, we are being totally dishonest about our own lack of knowledge on a subject. And that what we wrote originated elsewhere.

As an AI language model, I am capable of providing references for information that is copied and pasted. However, it's important to note that I do not have access to all information on the internet and I am only able to provide information based on what I have been trained on. If you would like me to provide a reference for specific information, please let me know what that information is and I will do my best to provide a credible source.

 

[AV1611VET]

But as I said, you do you, and I'll do me. And so long as neither of us feels the need to take up arms against the other we should be fine.

Did the simulator want Columbine shut down for awhile?

 

[Diamond72]

"Circle of Life"? What does this have to do with anything 'real'?

From a scientific perspective, the "Circle of Life" can be seen as a reflection of the natural processes of growth, decay, and regeneration that are present in ecosystems and the natural world.

I don't think the Theory of Evolution has anything to do with "archetypal" symbols

While the Theory of Evolution and archetypal symbols may seem unrelated at first glance, it's worth noting that both are areas of study that have been shaped by the contributions of many different thinkers and researchers over time. Additionally, both topics can provide valuable insights into different aspects of the human experience and the world around us. However, it's important to distinguish between scientific theories, like the Theory of Evolution, and concepts from other fields, like archetypal symbols, in order to avoid confusion and maintain clarity in our understanding of different subjects.

Jung's work has been influential in the field of psychology and continues to be studied and discussed today, it is generally not considered to be a science in the same way that disciplines like physics or biology are.

I have one brother who has a PhD in Psychology and my other brother is a medical doctor. Doctors send patients to be evaluated by a psychologist all the time. For sexual abuse, learning problems, even they ask for help from Psychology for Tourette syndrome. So your suggestion that Psychology is not valid and accepted by science is simply wrong. The medical Psychiatrist is pretty much a drug pusher in my opinion. But we can have this discussion if you want as to what is and what is not considered to be valid by science.

 

[Diamond72]

Second, the simulation hypothesis makes much more sense to me than the God hypothesis does.

A product of your imagination is more real than the real world? It is important to distinguish between the subjective experience of imagination and the objective reality of the physical world. I understand that people like Musk and Neil Degrasse have problems with this issue, but if they want to get the job done, they have to function in the real world and not in their own subjective experience.

This could be why half the books in the Library and almost all of TV and movies are based on imagination. People are looking for an escape from the harsh reality of the real world and the news.

 

[Diamond72]

Did the simulator want Columbine shut down for awhile?

In the aftermath of the shooting, there were debates and discussions about school safety, gun control, mental health, and other related issues. The school itself was closed for several weeks after the shooting, and underwent significant renovations before it reopened.

 

[AV1611VET]

In the aftermath of the shooting, there were debates and discussions about school safety, gun control, mental health, and other related issues. The school itself was closed for several weeks after the shooting, and underwent significant renovations before it reopened.

I wonder where the simulator will strike next?

 

[Hans Blaster]

While the Theory of Evolution and archetypal symbols may seem unrelated at first glance, it's worth noting that both are areas of study that have been shaped by the contributions of many different thinkers and researchers over time. Additionally, both topics can provide valuable insights into different aspects of the human experience and the world around us. However, it's important to distinguish between scientific theories, like the Theory of Evolution, and concepts from other fields, like archetypal symbols, in order to avoid confusion and maintain clarity in our understanding of different subjects.

Either you or your chatbot filibuster like an unprepared undergraduate in a blue book essay.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I wonder where the simulator will strike next?

It's apparently started glitching and replacing posters on CF.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's apparently started glitching and replacing posters on CF.

It's one thing to "glitch-and-replace."

It's quite another to "not-glitch-and-deplete."

Like he apparently did at Columbine.

So I'm wondering where he has programmed his next massacre?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's one thing to "glitch-and-replace."

It's quite another to "not-glitch-and-deplete."

Like he apparently did at Columbine.

So I'm wondering where he has programmed his next massacre?

Sometimes I feel like I'm all ready being massacred here by the bots.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sometimes I feel like I'm all ready being massacred here by the bots.

Bots have Kelvin's IQ:

Absolute Zero.

 

[dlamberth]

As an AI language model, I am capable of providing references for information that is copied and pasted. However, it's important to note that I do not have access to all information on the internet and I am only able to provide information based on what I have been trained on. If you would like me to provide a reference for specific information, please let me know what that information is and I will do my best to provide a credible source.

Now if being honest, please add something like: "From a chapbot" so that the reader knows your source for "copy and paste".

 

[Hans Blaster]

Bots have Kelvin's IQ:

Absolute Zero.

Good luck convincing "Diamond" of that.