Evolution and the Circle of Life.

[Diamond7]

"Fine, I'll play him, or I'll play his computer. I'll do my best to beat either one."

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.

 

[Diamond7]

My computer came with video editing software and a creepy digital assistant and I don't use either of them, because I have no need for them.

Google uses AI (Artificial Intelligence) extensively in its products and services. Google has been a pioneer in the field of AI and has made significant contributions to the development of AI technologies. So as they say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. IF you use a computer, IF you use google then you have no room to complain about my use of a computer and my use of AI. We all have the right to pick and choose as we please.

Most of this is in Wiki anyways. If you do not agree, you have the right to go into Wiki and make changes.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Google uses AI (Artificial Intelligence) extensively in its products and services. Google has been a pioneer in the field of AI and has made significant contributions to the development of AI technologies.

I didn't say anything about "chatbots" or AI until post #85 when I was responding to what seemed like an obvious false statement that research is done with chatbots. Since this is the science section and "evolution" is the first word in your thread title, I foolishly thought you were talking about scientific research. What you seem instead to have been talking about was "do the research" a notion that just means "google it and find what I found" to so many on the interwebs. (Actual science isn't done by "googling" things.)

So as they say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I am neither a goose nor a gander or any other foul. I am an ape.

IF you use a computer, IF you use google then you have no room to complain about my use of a computer and my use of AI.

I don't care if you use computers or talk to chatbots. I do care when large chunks of your posts are nothing but chatbot output.

I do use google. (I have for a long time.) But I don't "talk" to it. I don't even ask it questions. I form searches with keywords and select the best target pages to view. I don't really care what algorithms it is using to select those pages.

If it is "research" for a reply here, I will process and write my response. I may block quote text or provide a link. (It is these last two that is so missing from your postings.)

We all have the right to pick and choose as we please.

And we can choose not to interact with those that regurgitate pseudo-prose from bots.

Most of this is in Wiki anyways. If you do not agree, you have the right to go into Wiki and make changes.

Then why do you almost never note the citation?

 

[Neutral Observer]

Basing it on intuition that I'm 99.9% sure that you are not a chatbot.

I'm not even that sure that I'm not a Chatbot, or some other form of general AI. How would I know? How could I even compute the probability?

I am definitely not a chatbot because I wrote this statement. CHEESE TURNIPS BROKEN MONKEY SPOON.

Well that certainly is impressive, but somehow I'm still not convinced.

Yes, it will get harder in the future to tell if anyone is or is not a chabot, but that day has not come yet.

How do you know that? What will that day look like?

I don't expect you to be able to answer these questions. Heck I've been thinking about them for years and I have no idea how to answer them.

If I was an AI, how would I know?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm not even that sure that I'm not a Chatbot, or some other form of general AI. How would I know? How could I even compute the probability?



Well that certainly is impressive, but somehow I'm still not convinced.



How do you know that? What will that day look like?

I don't expect you to be able to answer these questions. Heck I've been thinking about them for years and I have no idea how to answer them.

If I was an AI, how would I know?

Honestly, I have no care to entertain this any further.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Honestly, I have no care to entertain this any further.

Quite understandable, no hard feelings, they were just thoughts.

 

[Diamond7]

"do the research"

Did I say "do the research" sorry I meant to say study the research. First, you have to find it to study it. Google uses AI to help us find the research to study it. Chatbot also uses AI to help us find relevant research on any given subject.

Magazines are suppose to study the research at an 11th grade level or higher, then they dummy it down so that people can understand with a 5th grade or 8th grade level of understanding.

The insane thing is when you have people with a PhD that can not understand at even a preschool level. They can claim they do not believe but they simply do not understand. Of course, there are also people who claim they do not care or they do not understand. But they know there is a God, so they really are in conflict with themselves and what they know to be true. So they come here trying to resolve that conflict, they are having with themselves.

In almost every post I tell people: I was a carpenter, we know how to build it and get it to work in the real world. Many people sit in their easy chair in their ivory tower and they do not know how to function in the real world. Sometimes they have to take their hard hat off and get their hands dirty and find out what life is like in the real world and not the imaginary world that they seem to live in.

 

[Diamond7]

I'm not even that sure that I'm not a Chatbot, or some other form of general AI. How would I know? How could I even compute the probability?

I just had a procedure done called a Cardiac catheterization. Now I understand why people talk about having an alien abduction where they do medical experiments. You are awake for the procedure but, they talk amount themselves in a way that you do not understand them. You have to be alert and aware to know what the situation is.

I told them I was on a low fat, low salt diet and they would not find anything. But they did not believe me. They had to look for themselves. When they want to poke and prod and cut on me they had better know what they are talking about and be able to demonstrate to me that they know what they are doing.

It reminds me of when we used a crane to drop in the roof supports for a pole barn we were building. My life was on the line and I wanted to know for sure that crane operator knew what he was doing, so he would not knock me off that roof. There is very little room for mistakes with that joy stick he is using to control that machine.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So just to reiterate: the circle of life from the Disney film, The Lion King, is just a poetic phrase to refer to how life is cyclical: things are born, they die, and other things are born after that.

Evolution does require that things live and die so that the next generation of animals are born, but all of biology requires that animals live and animals die.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Did I say "do the research" sorry I meant to say study the research. First, you have to find it to study it. Google uses AI to help us find the research to study it. Chatbot also uses AI to help us find relevant research on any given subject.

I don't care what tools you use to find things or understand them. I've said that many times before. I personally don't have any need of chatbots, and I don't like reading cut-and-paste replies from them. That is all.

Magazines are suppose to study the research at an 11th grade level or higher, then they dummy it down so that people can understand with a 5th grade or 8th grade level of understanding.

I'm not sure what magazines have to do with anything, but OK?

The insane thing is when you have people with a PhD that can not understand at even a preschool level.

Where is this going? (looks ahead, Oh, so disappointing.)

They can claim they do not believe but they simply do not understand.

Since is now clear you are talking about "god", then yes I do not believe. I understand plenty. It just isn't believable.

Of course, there are also people who claim they do not care or they do not understand. But they know there is a God, so they really are in conflict with themselves and what they know to be true.

How many thousand times do we need to tell you people that we don't believe? If we knew there was a god we would have to accept its existence. To my understanding of the world, there is not need for a god, so why should I think there is one.

You should really stop claiming to know what other people believe, especially after they explicitly tell you the contrary. You have no evidence to counter anyone's statement about their internal beliefs. It is rather rude to claim to know someone's thoughts better than they do.

So they come here trying to resolve that conflict, they are having with themselves.

No conflict with ourselves. I came here to have conflicts with the peddlers of pseudoscience, which you seem to be flirting with a lot.

In almost every post I tell people: I was a carpenter, we know how to build it and get it to work in the real world. Many people sit in their easy chair in their ivory tower and they do not know how to function in the real world. Sometimes they have to take their hard hat off and get their hands dirty and find out what life is like in the real world and not the imaginary world that they seem to live in.

You don't tell people in almost every post that you are a carpenter, I'm not sure I've heard this before. You do frequently hurl vague insults at people as you have done here.

 

[AV1611VET]

No conflict with ourselves. I came here to have conflicts with the peddlers of pseudoscience, which you seem to be flirting with a lot.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever corrected a scientist before?

 

[Diamond7]

I don't like reading cut-and-paste replies from them.

And I do not like wasting my time writing out responses for people who are not interested. You want to lead people around like a cow with a ring in his nose and you get upset if they stand up to you.

I'm not sure what magazines have to do with anything, but OK?

Again, I would have been better off quoting the chatbot. I am talking about peer-reviewed research in peer-reviewed
When I told you the level they are written at, I assumed you would understand what I am talking about. For example, my dad was a medical doctor and so I would read articles in the American Journal of Pediatrics. The stuff written for doctors to read. . When I told you the level it was written at I assumed you would understand what I am talking about.

No conflict with ourselves. I came here to have conflicts with the peddlers of pseudoscience, which you seem to be flirting with a lot.

That is exactly what you are peddling and people are always guilty of what they accuse others of. This is called psychological projecting. If you are too lazy to look that up I will quote the reference for you.

Psychological projecting refers to a defense mechanism in which an individual unconsciously attributes their own feelings, impulses, or thoughts onto another person. In other words, they project their own issues onto someone else, usually in order to avoid dealing with their own unresolved conflicts or emotions.

If you want to shadow box yourself, go right ahead, that has very little if anything to do with me. Just like the choices and decisions that you make in life have nothing to do with me. I am not even sure I care.

 

[Diamond7]

Where is this going?

Ok, I will explain that to you. These are all standard answers that I have to explain to people over and over again. My brother wrote dissertation on a preschool readiness test. My dad actually used his test for his patients to see if they were ready for the first grade. My wife actually started school two years early but that is another story.

In many ancient languages and scripts, each letter had a corresponding symbolic value or meaning beyond its phonetic sound. For example, in Hebrew, each letter of the alphabet is also a numerical symbol, with specific values assigned to each letter. This system is called gematria and has been used for mystical purposes, such as in the Kabbalah, as well as for practical applications such as in numerology.

I would not allow children to enter into the first grade if they did not know what the letters represent. Yet there are people with a PhD that do not know what the letters represent. They would flunk my preschool readiness test. This is not unusual. I will ask the chatbot to write a response at a preschool level and people still do not understand because they do not know how to deal with symbols. Allegories or archetypes. Disney deals in archetypes so people are able to relate and understand. Even there is a Disney in Japan and in Hong Kong. So all people no matter what their culture understand a universal language.

 

[Diamond7]

I'm not even that sure that I'm not a Chatbot, or some other form of general AI. How would I know? How could I even compute the probability?

Musk and Neil Degrasse do not know either. They think we could be a simulation in a matrix type of world. As Christians, we know that the world (universe) is real because God tells us it is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is exactly what you are peddling and people are always guilty of what they accuse others of. This is called psychological projecting. If you are too lazy to look that up I will quote the reference for you.

Psychological projecting refers to a defense mechanism in which an individual unconsciously attributes their own feelings, impulses, or thoughts onto another person. In other words, they project their own issues onto someone else, usually in order to avoid dealing with their own unresolved conflicts or emotions.

If you want to shadow box yourself, go right ahead, that has very little if anything to do with me. Just like the choices and decisions that you make in life have nothing to do with me. I am not even sure I care.

Please detail what pseudoscience I am peddling.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I would not allow children to enter into the first grade if they did not know what the letters represent. Yet there are people with a PhD that do not know what the letters represent. They would flunk my preschool readiness test. This is not unusual. I will ask the chatbot to write a response at a preschool level and people still do not understand because they do not know how to deal with symbols. Allegories or archetypes. Disney deals in archetypes so people are able to relate and understand. Even there is a Disney in Japan and in Hong Kong. So all people no matter what their culture understand a universal language.

Letters in English represent sounds (or a group of sounds or in combination with other letters).

Let me demonstrate:

In "Letters",

The "L" "t" "r" and "s" represent specific sounds without any ambiguity. Some of those letters can be used in combination with others to make different sounds, but "rs" is not such a combination. The only one of those sounds that is spelled any differently is the "s" represents a sound that is often spelled with a "z".

The "e" is somewhat ambiguous as the letter "e" (even by itself) has several related sounds. It can also be silent, or have other sounds in combination with other vowels. The doubled "tt" indicates the sound of the "e" before it. The "er" at the end is a common syllable that the child need to learn in pronouncing words.

None of those symbols has any numerical, allegorical, or mystical meaning. They are just there to tell you how to pronounce the word (and vice versa to recognize the written version of a spoken word).

Standard English does not have mystical letter meanings, numerical values, etc.

 

[Neutral Observer]

Musk and Neil Degrasse do not know either. They think we could be a simulation in a matrix type of world. As Christians, we know that the world (universe) is real because God tells us it is.

First, the world is real regardless of whether it's a simulation or not.

Second, the simulation hypothesis makes much more sense to me than the God hypothesis does. If only because the God hypothesis makes no sense at all, except as part of a very poorly designed computer simulation. Like GTA with a God thrown in to add a sense of moral drama to the backstory. Otherwise why would a God create a world full of irrational people... give them a bunch of ambiguous and vague evidence for His existence...and then judge them to eternal damnation for failing to recognize His divinity. It just doesn't make any sense. If God expects people to make a rational choice then at least make them rational.

So with all due respect to Pascal, I'd put my money on the likelihood that reality is a simulation long before I'd put it on the existence of an omnipotent God.

 

[AV1611VET]

First, the world is real regardless of whether it's a simulation or not.

Second, the simulation hypothesis makes much more sense to me than the God hypothesis does. If only because the God hypothesis makes no sense at all, except as part of a very poorly designed computer simulation. Like GTA with a God thrown in to add a sense of moral drama to the backstory. Otherwise why would a God create a world full of irrational people... give them a bunch of ambiguous and vague evidence for His existence...and then judge them to eternal damnation for failing to recognize His divinity. It just doesn't make any sense. If God expects people to make a rational choice then at least make them rational.

So with all due respect to Pascal, I'd put my money on the likelihood that reality is a simulation long before I'd put it on the existence of an omnipotent God.

What's more "ambiguous and vague"?

God, or your simulator?

Let's start with this simple question:

What's your simulator's name?

And if your simulator is less ambiguous than God, why do many scientists put their trust in God, than your simulator?

 

[Neutral Observer]

What's more "ambiguous and vague"?

God, or your simulator?

That's the whole point, one might expect a 'simulator' to be ambiguous and vague about its existence, but one wouldn't expect a God to be, especially one that's going to judge you by your ability to discern its existence.

Therefore when comparing the two scenarios it's far more likely that reality is a simulation. Not because a simulation is the most likely cause, but because God isn't.

What's your simulator's name?

I don't think the 'simulator' has any concerns at all about whether or not I know its name. But if you insist, YHWH is as good of a name as any.

And if your simulator is less ambiguous than God, why do many scientists put their trust in God, than your simulator?

I never said that the simulator is less ambiguous than God, and as to why people put their trust in Him that's a question for psychologists, but the last time I checked popularity isn't an objective measure of validity, even among scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't think the 'simulator' has any concerns at all about whether or not I know its name.

Then your simulator can take a hike.

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