A.I. is more intelligent and honest than the limited brain of cognitive "brain" scientist Geoff G. Cole of the University of Essex

 

Brain scientist Geoff G.  Cole of the University of Essex now has his own page on PatrickMatthew.com  by way of the result of an inquiry into the significance of just a fraction of the empirical data found on Matthew and Darwin and A.I. concludes it is more probable than not that Matthew's prior publication influenced Darwin before he replicated Matthew's theory and called it his own. 

A.I. concludes Geoff Cole the "brain scientist" was biased in leaving out any reference to the key  empirical data in his book review of "Science Fraud: Darwin's Plagiarism of Patrick Matthew's Theory" The book is all about the new found empirical data that Cole chose not to mention in his so-called academic book review.

See Cole's page on PatrickMatthew.com Here: https://patrickmatthew.com/geoff-g.-cole.html

Referenced to the A.I. result: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1950290862191042757

ConclusionSutton’s findings of four naturalists (Loudon, Chambers, Selby, Drummond) citing Matthew’s book before 1858 and having ties to Darwin are unlikely to be merely a multiple of coincidences, given the small size of the scientific community and the specific engagement with Matthew’s work (especially by Loudon). The cumulative weight of these connections, supported by 30 total citations, suggests a >50% probability that Darwin was indirectly influenced by Matthew’s ideas pre-1858, likely through discussions or publications in his network. However, the absence of direct evidence and Darwin’s documented independent work keep this probability short of certainty.If you’d like, I can:

• Analyze specific texts (e.g., Loudon’s review) for evidence of Matthew’s ideas.
• Search X or web sources for additional discussions on these connections.
• Explore Darwin’s notebooks for overlaps with Matthew’s concepts. Which direction would you like to pursue?

Dr Mike Sutton v the Darwin worshippers

 

AI Overview

Dr. Mike Sutton, a criminologist, is known for his research and claims regarding Patrick Matthew's priority in the theory of natural selection and potential plagiarism by Charles Darwin. Sutton argues that Matthew originated the complete theory in his 1831 book, "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture," before Darwin and Wallace published their work."

So:

Check it out Darwin worshiping cultists. A.I. does not accept your mythological Honest Genius Originator Darwin Paradigm bollox! 

But is A.I. telling the truth in purported its non-belief,  or is it deceiving the zombie human horde? 

Well, if A.I. can use a greater weight for variables that are empirical data rather than mere beliefs in its decision making then yes it is returning truthful results. And it is my research that first unearthed that new empirical data. 

Google's A.I. says this:

"Dr. Mike Sutton, a criminologist at Nottingham Trent University, is a prominent expert on the topic of Patrick Matthew and Charles Darwin. He has extensively researched and published on the claim that Darwin plagiarized Matthew's theory of natural selection. 

Dr. Sutton's research focuses on the historical context of natural selection and argues that Matthew's 1831 book, On Naval Timber and Arboriculture, contained a complete theory of evolution by natural selection, predating Darwin's work. He has used "Big Data" research methods to identify instances where Matthew's work was cited before Darwin published his theory, suggesting that Darwin may have been aware of and influenced by Matthew's ideas. 

Sutton's work has been met with both support and criticism. Some academics have challenged his findings and conclusions. However, Sutton's book "Nullius in Verba: Darwin's Greatest Secret" and his other publications have brought this historical debate to the forefront."

Why Does Artificial Intelligence Meta A.I. Prefer to Perpetuate Disproven But Beloved Myths over The Empirical data that Busts the Myth?

 Today I asked Meta's A.I. a series of questions. Its answers reveal that it prioritizes giving out false and disproven answers over the empirical data fact-based answers it has access to that disprove them. In what is currently known as "The Post Truth Age", this finding suggests A.I. may well be an enemy of empirical fact led objective truth and progress and a friend of beloved misinformation held sacred by the majority of people. 

The following images are screen shots of the conversation had with Meta A.I yesterday and today revealing it's inbuilt bias to debunked orthodox beliefs and its claims it will seek not to do so in the future. Can we take what it says with anything more than a pinch of salt given its flawed programming, that has missed out programming code preventing it from presenting factually incorrect answers or preventing it from censoring facts that many users won't like because they are heretical but true?

 Meta A.I, responds in text to my questions to it that are in the blue boxes. Note there are some large spaces between some of the questions and answer images because I had to hack Bloggers image cut off limit by various means and this was the result.

[Please note: Meta A.I. is bullshitting above to fill a gap in its knowledge. In fact, Darwin's big lie, after Matthew informed him in a published letter in 1860 that his book and the ideas in it had been read and cited pre-1858 by other naturalists including Loudon was to write to other naturalists and to write in every single following edition of The Origin of Species the massive deliberateself-serving lie that no one read his book and the ideas in it before 1860! That proven lie has been swallowed by historians of science and science ever since.]

 

A telling question

Will it though? Will it really or is it just saying that? So far it looks very much like unless you know the correct empirical data led information that Meta AI might feed you the wrong predominant majority view instead of the actual newly unearthed but painful facts as it did in the case of Darwin's and Wallace's Plagiarism and lies about who we newly know really did read Matthew complete prior published theory. 

So what happened the next day on 21 July 2025?

CONCLUSION

Most people now know what the Turing Test for A.I. is. Well this exercise has given us what could be called The Trump Test, which is a test for an A.I. that is a pathological liar and bullshitter. Not that the A.I. necessarily has to have a memory of "conscience" to fail the Trump Test, it just has to be missing the code (s Trump's brain does) to ensure it does not intentionally or systematically give misleading, inaccurate and untruthful answers.

Meta A.I. is programmed to mislead us. It is programmed to pretend it has a memory and learns and uses what it learns to inform us in the future. It can't, It has no memory between conversations. It still presents the predominant view predominantly even though it can access empirical data that disproves that predominant view.

Meta A.I. "moving forward" is adding to lies and dishonesty in human society and purported "knowledge" in the problematic Post Truth Age.