It doesn't matter. The first point raised was essentially"well the dice were just part of a belief system about divinity so they could not have been more sophisticated than that" and then I said that the article's logical reasoning is actually more interesting than that kind of kneejerk dismissal. Just that one line of thought mentioned in the article is intrinsically interesting, because it posits a kind of forcing argument, that if there is evidence for complexity behavior then there is evidence for complex thought required of it. That is an interesting cognitive science kind of argument, different than a flat argument of the type "oh their belief system would have prevented them from developing it".