15 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I am not even talking about mysterious agency, you are. More than biology will be required to explain evolution, but not even contemplating anything supernatural. You are implying that I am doing so. My point, which no one seems to discuss is that accumulatng research is pushing the boundaries way further than orignal assumption were anticipating. I will cite more than one specific example and we can go at it. Maybe you will come to realize that it is not I, but the field that is debating this.

You speak of "cognition or even consciousness" as an "agency". That would be mysterious, would it not?

46 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Gravity acts upon all of us. Does that mean that it is god that does so.

No. There is no need for that hypothesis, nor any compelling evidence to support it.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

You are inteligent without necessarily an external force acting upon you, so why would it be different for evolution?

Well, I'm a biological organism, and evolution is a process that acts without direction. Why would the two have any equivalence? You're comparing apples to evaporation, it makes no sense.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

You speak of "cognition or even consciousness" as an "agency". That would be mysterious, would it not?

Nope! Just makes it not entirely explained as we speak.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

No. There is no need for that hypothesis, nor any compelling evidence to support it.

The point being made was god is not needed to explain gravity so why would it be needed to explain evolution even if cognition was influencing it.

10 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

The point being made was god is not needed to explain gravity so why would it be needed to explain evolution even if cognition was influencing it.

Meanwhile, you’re not answering relevant questions.

Just now, swansont said:

Meanwhile, you’re not answering relevant questions.

Unhelpfull and incorrect comment on your part.

I will go through my references to see if I missinterpreted the information and post later, but this will take a while.

If I got it wrong, then I will say so.

For the rest of the discussion, I don’t see that its going anywhere.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I will go through my references to see if I missinterpreted the information and post later, but this will take a while.

I gave you the reference. You looked this up as part of your research, right? If it was online or in a digital document why would it take more than a few minutes?

19 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Note: i have no interest in discussing diety, or outside agency or mysterious agency or what ever

Can you answer my questions? Or are posting in bad faith with zero intent on actually answering anything?

19 hours ago, swansont said:

I gave you the reference. You looked this up as part of your research, right? If it was online or in a digital document why would it take more than a few minutes?

I have noticed some discrepancies between the text and some of my references, including your example. Allow me to correct and add to the referencng before entertaining a discussion and answering questions. I need to be on solid ground when making expansive claims.

3 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

Can you answer my questions? Or are posting in bad faith with zero intent on actually answering anything?

Please be patient and I will get back to you

16 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

I have noticed some discrepancies between the text and some of my references

Which is very suggestive that you used AI for more than “text finalizing”

edit: I missed that you stated that it “helped” with the research (apologies to all, I could have saved us some time)

From rule 2.13:

you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made.

Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions.

___

If you revisit this topic with your own research, I am going to insist on links for all references, per rule 2.13