swansont

Agree. I think the specific series of changes humans underwent is specific to humans, but the overall process is the same as all organisms, as it must be. More specialized traits leave a species susceptible to extinction if/when the environment changes

I’m talking about the reaction mass How do you maneuver in the atmosphere and get back into space?

I made the point earlier that there’s a lot of analysis that’s independent of the technology; conservation of momentum doesn’t care how you impart the momentum. You have to use up a lot of your energy budget throwing the mass out of the back of the rocket, even if there’s no energy lost to anything but thrust and payload KE.

I’l lactose intolerant, as are others, so it’s not “we humans,” it’s “some humans” It certainly could be that this ability persisted because dairy is a way to turn indigestible grass, etc. into useful calories, and that’s something that would give improved survival probability and increase the odds of passing down the gene(s) responsible I asked for examples that supported your premise, i.e. ones that allowed you to draw your conclusion, and this doesn’t fit the bill. Evolving to adapt to new food sources is definitely something observed in wild animals. Sexual selection. Definitely something that happens in wild animals. Mammals generally have breasts, they just aren’t prominent when not lactating in most mammals. My understanding is that it’s part of the evolution of the human reproductive “strategy” where women aren’t just fertile for a short period of time (estrous) - humans don’t have a breeding season. Lots of inter-related elements in this. The specifics are human-centric but the process is not. Your examples don’t support your thesis.

What does structure matter if the content is wrong? That’s an apologist argument. That’s a tautology. This is reminiscent of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Patterns can be meaningless, though. Correlation is not the same as causality.

Which it said because humans have said this, a lot, so it’s the most likely respinse to give. AI can’t admit anything, and its “recognition” is pattern-matching. This doesn’t answer the question of how you know if the AI works. You said it often works, not always works.

I will once again ask you for examples of evolution in humans — the ones you are looking at to draw this conclusion. I think a problem here is that you are narrowing your field of view on this, but still trying to apply it to a broader conclusion.. Avoiding predators is not the only avenue of natural selection.

I don’t see how this would work. The detached sail will now have a higher acceleration, so it will separate from the craft. It will reflect less light, so any deceleration from it is smaller, and the remaining sail is still reflecting light, giving forward propulsion. The detached sail will be much more prone to tumble if there are any intensity variations over its profile.

The limitation is that reflective surfaces are not 100% reflective, and the high power needed for any appreciable acceleration makes absorptive heating a huge obstacle

Both statements can be true. You are stating something obvious (people don’t die for the same reasons as they did in the past) and also making misrepresentations about the theory. Perhaps you could give us examples of the evolution that’s happened that allegedly wasn’t from natural selection.

I thought it was clear that I can’t decipher what you’re saying, unless this whole thread is about stating an obvious, uncontested fact with no further point. Yes, we have reduced selection pressure in many ways owing to having intelligence. Individuals survive that likely would not have without our technology. What are you wishing to discuss?

Repeating yourself is not an answer to my question Which is: so what? Is your point that you need to explain the obvious? I’ve already said that we reduce selection pressure, though I wouldn’t say it’s reduced to zero. Yes. So what? It seems there’s no point to be made past this preamble of stating the obvious, to wit, that human intelligence (enabled by other evolutionary changes) has been a great advantage. I’ve been waiting for the second act, and it seems you’re reaffirming that there is none. Opposable thumbs are arguably necessary for our technology, which you have mentioned. I think the disagreement you’ve seen is from your gaps/deficiencies in understanding evolution, not in the general observation.

Ok, we have a survival advantage. So what’s the point you’re trying to make? Lots of species have a survival advantage for the world as it has recently been. You also said “Humans have been evolving for more than a million years. Back then we've evolving closer to the way wild animals have. Both society and technologies have made humans much more likely to reach reproductive age than wild animals.” You agree that our traits give us a survival advantage but you made a distinction between our advantage and “wild animals” but now that doesn’t matter? You seem to be treating human evolution as being different because we’re leveraging our intelligence and opposable thumbs, but you haven’t made a case for why that should be.

Your LLM algorithmically determines that your statements are at odds with statements made by others Are LLMs analyzing rules or just recognizing patterns in its training data? I don’t see this as projection as much as interpolation. I saw this summarized as “the centroid of thought” You’re not teaching it to play by giving it the rules, you’re training it by letting it memorize a bunch of games that have been played. How do you know when it works vs not work This is reminiscent of arguments that torture works because sometimes you get correct information.

I’m not sure if offended is the right word, but quoting responses as if they were rebuttals to a different argument or comment is certainly off-putting. If you think that’s what the responses were addressing I think you have some reading comprehension issues. Otherwise it’s not something you can call a good-faith exchange.