How atheist ideology messed up the human origin story

[Jayjay4547]

What is currently called "AI" cannot think.

It is a dictionary with natural language parsing.

All it can do is regurgitate it's input, with reasonable grammar.

"What is the diameter of the moon?" is a query it can answer**.

"Should I wear these pants with this top?" Is not.

ChatGPT question pants and top.jpg (44.97 KiB) Viewed 306 times

[Fenrir]

Fuksake

[Fenrir]

Alice in Wonderland: Simple Tasks Showing Complete Reasoning Breakdown in State-Of-the-Art Large Language Models

"Alice has N brothers and she also has M sisters. How many sisters does Alice’s brother have?"

Very telling that you appear incapable of ever addressing the actual points people are making. Intellectual dishonesty at its finest.

[Jayjay4547]

No, jj. The only question here is: Who is here doing the lying? JJ?

No-one here is lying.

It's creationism debunkers who work full time on attacking the character and standing of the other side. It's debunkers who by their choice of words, show that they have an axe to grind.

Your criteria are how much butthurt you suffer and your reaction is to project and whine. Or maybe you can actually present your criteria if you disagree with that assessment. Your character is what it is. I don't care about your character, JJ. It's the inadequacy of your responses to accomplish more than to soothe your enormous butthurt on which I comment.

Whatever my peculiarities, I find myself positioned precisely at a place from where I can see something of how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story. Part of that is my being able to see that the given origin story starts with positioning the australopiths as the ancestors of “The Third Chimpanzee”, in other words, as SIMILAR to other animals. When actually, the australopiths were positioned precisely and uniquely at the headwaters of a two million yea- long creative stream that would carry them in the twenty first century, to creating machines that can talk. In other words, it was the australopith’s DIFFERENCES from other savanna animals that mattered.

[Cito di Pense]

in other words, as SIMILAR to other animals

JJ, they WERE animals, nothing more. No song and dance necessary, no chapter and verse. I know you believe humans are not exactly animals, but in that case, just fuck off with your doctrinal content.

Whatever my peculiarities, I find myself positioned precisely

Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back...

When actually, the australopiths were positioned precisely

Did you intentionally do this, JJ, or is this just your reverting to the old "call and response" you learned sitting in the pews? What do you mean by this "positioned precisely" bullshit? That god put you here and now, and them, there and then, and everything else, in between, without contingency? You make your audience out to be as stupid as you are. Your narcissism is boundless.

[Jayjay4547]

I came across this article
Helm (2024)Fossil finds footprints on South Africa's coast….. showing an ichnologist not being on the lookout evidence of spear use by early humans:

The oldest evidence of humans using sticks
Three of the Brenton-on-Sea sites also contain some of the oldest known evidence of humans using sticks. The organic matter from which such sticks were composed would long since have decayed, and the ichnology (trace fossil) record therefore provides what is probably the only viable means of identifying such stick use.

Sticks could potentially have been used as walking or running aids, to cope with ambulating with an injury, in foraging techniques, for messaging, or for what might be aesthetic purposes, such as inscribing patterns in the sand.

Helm notes the problem with finding fossil sticks themselves, but his suggestions of what hominins might have used sticks for are strikingly trivial or rare. Carrying a stick to Inscribe patterns in the sand?

OK I often trail a stick to leave a sinusoidal pattern in the sand, but I pick up the stick to admonish the dog. Most always I see when people carry a stick it signals a weapon; to dogs or cattle or to other people,-the last a stupid signal, I avoid that.

[fluttermoth]

I came across this article
Helm (2024)Fossil finds footprints on South Africa's coast….. showing an ichnologist not being on the lookout evidence of spear use by early humans:

The oldest evidence of humans using sticks
Three of the Brenton-on-Sea sites also contain some of the oldest known evidence of humans using sticks. The organic matter from which such sticks were composed would long since have decayed, and the ichnology (trace fossil) record therefore provides what is probably the only viable means of identifying such stick use.

Sticks could potentially have been used as walking or running aids, to cope with ambulating with an injury, in foraging techniques, for messaging, or for what might be aesthetic purposes, such as inscribing patterns in the sand.

Helm notes the problem with finding fossil sticks themselves, but his suggestions of what hominins might have used sticks for are strikingly trivial or rare. Carrying a stick to Inscribe patterns in the sand?

Did you miss the bit where it says foraging? IIRC, a significant amount of calories in a hunter gather diet comes from foraged foods.

OK I often trail a stick to leave a sinusoidal pattern in the sand, but I pick up the stick to admonish the dog. Most always I see when people carry a stick it signals a weapon; to dogs or cattle or to other people,-the last a stupid signal, I avoid that.

You use a stick to 'admonish' your dog? Do we have to add animal abuser to the long list of your character faults, JJ? I've had dogs all my life, and I have never, ever, used a stick to 'admonish' one

[The_Metatron]

Nope. Not ever.

Pity the man I observe doing so. He’s about to have a very bad day.

[Jayjay4547]

Whatever my peculiarities, I find myself positioned precisely at a place from where I can see something of how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story. Part of that is my being able to see that the given origin story starts with positioning the australopiths as the ancestors of “The Third Chimpanzee”, in other words, as SIMILAR to other animals. When actually, the australopiths were positioned precisely and uniquely at the headwaters of a two million yea- long creative stream that would carry them in the twenty first century, to creating machines that can talk. In other words, it was the australopith’s DIFFERENCES from other savanna animals that mattered.

in other words, as SIMILAR to other animals

JJ, they WERE animals, nothing more. No song and dance necessary, no chapter and verse. I know you believe humans are not exactly animals, but in that case, just fuck off with your doctrinal content.

Instead of taking up the point I was actually making in my paragraph above, you just snipped it to make an opportunity to restate the politically correct line on human evolution that I characterised as “The Third Chimpanzee” after Jared Diamond’s 1991 book title.

Politically correct statements are often boring. This particular one is also catastrophically wrong because it misses a vital feature of human origins, which was that the australopiths three million years ago, were uniquely adapted into coevolution with weapons. That put them on a unique narrow track towards group selection towards speech.
………..

Whatever my peculiarities, I find myself positioned precisely at a place from where I can see something of how atheist ideology has messed up the human origin story.

Don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back.,,

I bolded the quote you snipped out of my argument. No, I was suggesting an analogy between the narrow track that human evolution followed, and the narrow track of my interest in that. You are also on a narrow track, as one of the small minority of viewers who comment here, year after year, to attack this the thread starter. You don’t do that because you are outstandingly smart amongst viewers is it? It’s because of something particular about where you are coming from. Same with me.

When actually, the australopiths were positioned precisely

Did you intentionally do this, JJ, or is this just your reverting to the old "call and response" you learned sitting in the pews? What do you mean by this "positioned precisely" bullshit? That god put you here and now, and them, there and then, and everything else, in between, without contingency? You make your audience out to be as stupid as you are. Your narcissism is boundless.

Stop being such an antireligious bigot. Contingency is basically boring because it’s about what could have happened but didn’t. When what did happen is so interesting and relevant to the current world. You just call me narcissistic to signal common jeering with Fenrir.

[Jayjay4547]

I came across this article
Helm (2024)Fossil finds footprints on South Africa's coast….. showing an ichnologist not being on the lookout evidence of spear use by early humans:

The oldest evidence of humans using sticks
Three of the Brenton-on-Sea sites also contain some of the oldest known evidence of humans using sticks. The organic matter from which such sticks were composed would long since have decayed, and the ichnology (trace fossil) record therefore provides what is probably the only viable means of identifying such stick use.

Sticks could potentially have been used as walking or running aids, to cope with ambulating with an injury, in foraging techniques, for messaging, or for what might be aesthetic purposes, such as inscribing patterns in the sand.

Helm notes the problem with finding fossil sticks themselves, but his suggestions of what hominins might have used sticks for are strikingly trivial or rare. Carrying a stick to Inscribe patterns in the sand?

Did you miss the bit where it says foraging? IIRC, a significant amount of calories in a hunter gather diet comes from foraged foods.

Using baboons as a model, I suppose the australopiths spent their daytime hours either foraging or fooling around. Wear on their teeth confirms the foraging. But using a stick to forage isn’t that common is it? Using a stick that will leave a track in the sand if held in a common way?

OK I often trail a stick to leave a sinusoidal pattern in the sand, but I pick up the stick to admonish the dog. Most always I see when people carry a stick it signals a weapon; to dogs or cattle or to other people,-the last a stupid signal, I avoid that.

You use a stick to 'admonish' your dog? Do we have to add animal abuser to the long list of your character faults, JJ? I've had dogs all my life, and I have never, ever, used a stick to 'admonish' one

I often use a particular stick near the front door specifically to admonish our Africanis dog from rushing down the front steps when I open the door, which would endanger a visitor. Honestly, sometimes I could moker that animal, when he can clearly see through the glass that it’s the charming three year old twins climbing up the long tiled steps, the same ones who endlessly try to put his lead on when they visit. But he never gives me the chance because he recognises the gesture of the raised stick and backs off.

Humans use specific stick gestures that are surely fully understood by those they confront. The raised stick held in the dominant hand is widely used to subdue, signal dominance, and also in a more deadly way, when it is weighted. A throwing spear is hurled with the dominant arm. A thrusting spear is held in both hands, with the dominant arm at the back giving it more scope for flexing. Those usages might be ancient and instinctive.

[Fenrir]

Contingency is basically boring because it’s about what could have happened but didn’t.

Clueless.

It's mindboggling how you can continue to serve up this insipid crap despite people repeatedly attempting to explain evolutionary contingency to you.

In evolutionary biology contingency describes the constraints on possible innovation due to the evolutionary history of a lineage.

You may recall the example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve which was used in an apparently fruitless attempt to explain the concept and which caused a bit of a stir a few years back?

Never mind, you do you, narcissism rules ok.

[The_Metatron]

…

Stop being such an antireligious bigot. Contingency is basically boring because it’s about what could have happened but didn’t. When what did happen is so interesting and relevant to the current world. You just call me narcissistic to signal common jeering with Fenrir.

Get something perfectly straight, JJ.

Bigotry is behavior directed to people for things they cannot change. Skin color, shit like that. You fucking choose religion. You choose the ignorance and stupidity. Calling you out for the ignorance and stupidity you choose is not bigotry.

Want to be less picked on? Reject the stupid.

Alternatively, toddle off to someplace on the internets that doesn’t mind your ignorance and stupidity. Never will there be a time where your behavior here doesn’t attract the responses it does until you change that behavior.

[Cito di Pense]

Stop being such an antireligious bigot.

You've been at this shit for nine years; what is it but your own bigotry that brings you here? Religion is only a tiny part of your tedious song and dance (and your resentment of atheism is by far the bigger part), but religion is where you learned to repeat yourself so metronomically. As Jesse points out, you have made choices, like the choice to repeat yourself like a ventriloquist's dummy.

Contingency is basically boring because it’s about what could have happened but didn’t.

Some events are made impossible by the past. For example, it's impossible for you to think clearly about the history of life, given what you believe in the present. You can change that, of course. Your entire message to "the atheists" is for them to change the way they think about your shit. If you don't like the word "contingency", consider "constraints". I'm sure you've heard of them. You've made a lot of concessions impossible for me by the nine years of what you've blathered all over this thread. If you had a demonstrable conjecture, you'd have demonstrated it long since. It's up to your audience, and not up to you, as to whether you've demonstrated anything. If you want to prove shit, try maths. A leopard isn't a constraint, because you don't always meet the leopard. Your terror is a constraint, whenever it's controlling you, until you do something about it. The rest is your butthurt.

[Jayjay4547]

Contingency is basically boring because it’s about what could have happened but didn’t.

Clueless.

It's mindboggling how you can continue to serve up this insipid crap despite people repeatedly attempting to explain evolutionary contingency to you.

Those weren’t just any “people”, those were antagonists trying to disclaim that atheist ideology could have messed up the human origin story. Your level of investment in that aim was shown by your shameless reaction to my flatly disproving your claim that AI couldn’t answer a query “Should I wear these pants with this top”.

ChatGPT is better at actually explaining things to me because, although it’s been trained up by people with a similar cultural position to yours, it doesnlt have an axe to grind, and it’s genuinely helpful. So I asked it: ”Can Contingency be said in some sense to be it’s about what could have happened but didn’t?”

ChatGPT: Yes, in a sense, contingency in evolutionary biology is deeply connected to the idea of what could have happened but didn’t. It highlights the role of chance, historical events, and path dependence in shaping the course of evolution.

After a 340 word unpacking, this LLM concluded:

ChatGPT: “In short, contingency reflects the interplay of what did happen, what could have happened, and what didn’t happen—but might have, had the "dice" of evolution rolled differently.”

In evolutionary biology contingency describes the constraints on possible innovation due to the evolutionary history of a lineage.
You may recall the example of the recurrent laryngeal nerve which was used in an apparently fruitless attempt to explain the concept and which caused a bit of a stir a few years back?

Never mind, you do you, narcissism rules ok.

Ah yes “narcissism”. Your endlessly repeated keyword to tell viewers to disregard what I say. Anyway, on the whole Ratskep forum I got just 251 hits on “laryngeal” but none from me. I do have an interest in the use of contingency in origin stories to punt atheist orthodoxy, so maybe my searches were faulty.

Then I asked: ”Can contingency be used to support a claim like "The products of evolution can sometimes be a bit clunky"?

This LLM answered “Absolutely!” and after unpacking that, ChatGPT said: “In summary, contingency highlights the "jury-rigged" nature of many evolutionary adaptations, making it a strong argument for why the products of evolution are sometimes far from elegant”

How common is it for students of biology to approach what they are studying from the perspective that it may be far from elegant?

ChatGPT: Conclusion
For many students of biology, learning that nature is often "far from elegant" is a transformative moment that deepens their understanding of how evolution operates. While biology is full of examples of astonishing complexity and functionality, recognizing the clunkiness and compromises inherent in evolutionary processes is a hallmark of a sophisticated biological education.

ChatGPT cited Steven Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins as highlighting contingency, and Simon Conway Morris as deprecating its significance. According to Wikipedia, “Conway Morris, a Christian, holds to theistic views of biological evolution. He has held the Chair of Evolutionary Palaeobiology in the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge since 1995”.

ChatGPT: Gould’s broader emphasis on contingency (e.g., his metaphor of "replaying the tape of life") has sparked debate among biologists. Critics, including Simon Conway Morris, argue that convergence—where similar traits evolve independently in unrelated lineages—suggests that certain evolutionary outcomes may be more deterministic than Gould proposed.

So, Conway Morris would be one of the unenlightened, who haven’t had this transformative moment. Almost as if he hasn’t been reborn. Ideology is at play here.

I’m happy to admit that the term “contingency” refers to a real category, but highlighting it is ideological.

[Fenrir]

The view from the summit of Mt. Stupid is so alluring JJ built a 24 storey brick house and locked all the exits.

[Cito di Pense]

I’m happy to admit that the term “contingency” refers to a real category

Well, that's progress, of a sort. Used to be "boring". The boredom, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves. (Yes, Cassius says we are underlings, but that doesn't mean we are doomed to be in a race to the bottom of the theocratic well. Cassius was compelled by his society to declare that he believed in gods.) "Ideology" is JJ's safe word, but if he's being tortured, he walked into this BDSM dungeon on his own. Time to give a listen to "Venus in Furs".

[Fenrir]

You've got it wrong Cito, it's ChatGPT that's chained up in JJ's basement, too polite to refuse the electrodes.

[Cito di Pense]

Novelty is easily created: a simple algorithm could produce a novel text string like GTOTHVGWAQ. But the biological creation has produced people who can implement that algorithm on a machine they created. That's not so obviously simple.

That's from March, 2015. Check out recent reports about how numerous mutations are in the dogs of Chernobyl. Mutations, JJ, produce novelties. Doesn't matter that Chernobyl is a man-made event. Cosmic rays are not man-made, and produce mutations, too. When you yammer about the "biological creation", don't neglect contingencies such as those produced by cosmic rays. Consider stochasticity. Everything according to plan, right?

What's changed in nine-and-a-half-plus years? Think a miracle has happened, JJ? Get a second opinion, preferably from a non-human species that talks. Just because you don't have a handy example doesn't mean you shouldn't ask, at least, ask yourself, using this imagination you marvel at. You should be able to manage it. You can't demonstrate that algorithm-implementing organisms observed here are unique in the universe. Of course, you think of it as a static creation, that is, without contingency, using creotard ideology? What's changed in all this time. You came here already resenting what folks had to say about creotard ideology, not as a missionary of "biological creation". With you, JJ, it's all-butthurt, all the time.

[Jayjay4547]

While I'm trying to figure what Cito is claiming, speaking of finding a watch on the heath, here are some things I have found on early morning walks. The first is what might be an Oldowan hand axe. On another walk, this beautifully crafted galvanised M8 bolt with captured washer. This morning I found scattered cards with a pic of a naked young woman on each side. The cards had each been torn in half and they were scattered down the path. I spent a little time piecing some of them together again but not included in this montage. Then I found a blooming Patterson's Curse, AKA Scotch Thistle. I took a pic of the exquisite geometrical shape of a bud, and of the magnificent bloom that had attracted me, and then I found this minute perfect ladybird on the other bloom.

Found_Oldowan_to_ladybird.jpg (3.19 MiB) Viewed 80 times

[Fenrir]

That is not Onopordum acanthium (Scotch thistle)

Nor is it Echium plantagineum (Patterson's curse)

Possibly Cynara cardunculus (artichoke thistle)


You know, there are AI tools for identifying common plants. Should be right up your alley.

You sure you'd recognise a heath?