thoughtfuhk

47 minutes ago, Strange said:

And, unlike a human, it can't do anything else.

AlphaZero, the latest variant, can play both chess and go, and it is being prepared for more cognitive tasks.

You may have heard that AlphaGo's predecessor, a single reinforcement learning model, could play several atari games, without being reprogrammed by humans.

Likewise, AlphaGo Zero is an initial approximation of Artificial General Intelligence. (Remember the whole point is to build more and more general algorithms.)

Quote

Come back when they have created an AI that prefers being on Facebook to playing Go.

Why?

Quote

If they were truly intelligent then when we ask them to help us, they may well say, "no" because they have more interesting things to do.

Similarly, a general purpose AI (even assuming such a thing is possible) when asked to play Go may say no because it doesn't like board games or no because it isn't very good at it or no because it is too busy planning the destruction of all organics life ...

I don't doubt that such a particular point in time may emerge!

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

Do you have any sort of comprehensive knowledge of courses taught, outside of your field, at some arbitrary university?

1. I tend to detect that Computer Science is a general type of course, that may encompass mathematics, physics/quantum physics, psychology, biology, chemistry etc.
2. In fact, AGI will likely emerge from a combination of multiple disciplines.
3. Here is a recent example by google deepmind et al, that combines several disciplines: Towards deep learning with segregated dendrite.
4. As such, I have a degree in Computer Science and, I seek to contribute to the development of Artificial General Intelligence.

8 minutes ago, swansont said:

thoughtfuhk said: "Postscript: Listen to what PhD Goertzel has to say about AGI:"

Moderator Note

We're not discussing this. The thread is about why people don't know about the courses.

 

Precisely.

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

So far all you are offering is a better computer data processing capability, which is of course to be expected given the regular advance in computing capability, "helping scientists" (Their words).

There was no evidence of the innovations arising from or being generated by the computers, which were only following instructions.

Yes I find it great that a modern computer can calculate the stresses in a bridge for me in 3 minutes. Calculations that used to take me three weeks before or three months when I had to do it all by hand.

But I note that with all this sophistication, bridges still sadly fall down, as the recent tragedy at Florida State University shows.

It's not merely about processing speed. 

Here's a scenario that ought to help eliminate your computing speed misconception: 

1. The game of go, is one of the hardest human games, with state space of \(10^{170} \).
2. To play go, you either need human intuition or something like a computer the size of the universe to enumerate the possible game states.
3. AlphaGo Zero, an artificial intelligence app, can beat the best human go player, by far.
4. AlphaGo Zero is not the size of the universe.
5. We see here, that its not merely about computing speed, but also cognitive structures such as those enabling human intuition.
6. AlphaGo Zero uses "human like intuition" or cognitive like processes, to reduce the enormous problem space of go, like humans do, because AlphaGo Zero is obviously not a computer the size of the universe!
7. Human intuition is akin to mathematical structures that aim to mirror biological brain function. For example, the notation \(W * x + b\) represents a mathematical or biologically inspired prior in machine learning (i.e. convolutions), or a hyperplane for representing some problem space in terms of artificial neuronal data. 

Note-1: AlphaGo Zero uses models including Deep Artificial Neural Networks to  to play the game of go. (Games are important as test spaces for ai, because games are lower in resolution that real life, hence cheaper to train algorithms on, while offering wide ranges of tasks to test on (to test algorithm generality), and we can safely test ai capabilities in games.) 

Note 2: And yes, the whole point of AGI is to help humans. However, it is doing so by use of human brain inspired hardware/software applications! 

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Why do you think this is mankind's last invention?

I already gave a suitable answer above.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is probably true of most specialised courses.

AGI is a discipline whose product may encompass all disciplines, all courses.

Postscript: Listen to what PhD Goertzel has to say about AGI:
 

Just now, Strange said:

So we should refrain from discussing AI on a thread about AI?

Reported.

This thread is concerned with MIT's AGI course, not the purpose of human life. 

Report at your leisure, albeit.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

You are now an expert on gene therapy?

Here is a quote from your agricultural chemical link, which amply demonstrated you and they do not have the faintest idea what I am talking about.

 

Sorry, that was the wrong link.

Correct link: "Artificial Intelligence takes Gene Therapy to the next level".

Postscript: I didn't say I was an expert at gene therapy. I simply underlined that Ai may aid in problems involving thinking, which is all problems, including gene issues.

1 minute ago, studiot said:

My neighbour has now been on a gene therapy regime to replace the failing chemotherapy regime she was on.

This was only licenced last November and my neighbour has shown a dramatic recovery since.

 

I doubt that an AI doctor, even combined with all the computer engineers at Microsoft, would be able to replace the human ingenuity that lead to this new form of treatment any time soon.

1. Yes, that AGI may emerge much much later, does not warrant that I was "flattering myself" or being narrow minded about the one particular discipline known as AGI.
2. At least now you've nicely pointed out that AGI is likely merely a matter of time, than a matter of possibility.

Postscript: Kurzweil predicts human level AGI by 2029.

Postscript-2: It is likely that that new treatment you referred to emerged with the aid of Ai!

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

You flatter yourself.

 

Perhaps you should look beyond your own discipline?

Think about this carefully:

1. Narrow Ai/deep artificial neural network powered models can now do individual cognitive tasks. (There's Ai for disease diagnosis that does better than human doctors, Ai for etc etc)
2. General Ai, called AGI, will likely cover the entire landscape of human cognitive ability, when AGI eventually arises. This means it will aid in doing problems involving thinking, which is all problems!
3. Why wouldn't a model that can do all human cognitive tasks better, not classify as mankind's last invention? Don't you recognize that AGI concerns all disciplines?

I find it disappointing that a course concerning perhaps mankind's last invention is hardly known outside of the machine learning community.  Why is MIT's Artificial General Intelligence course so weakly known??

Edit: I just noticed another thread of mine was recently closed. Please refrain from discussing that thread here.

5 minutes ago, studiot said:

I think the time has come to report this whole thread as a cavalier disregard of the rules of this forum.

Yes, some have certainly disregarded the rules of science; some have constantly confused religion with science. (As I underlined prior).

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

And yet a large number of well-educated native speakers of English disagree with you. 

No well-educated, native speakers of English agree with you.

 

 

I can't force you to own up to your errors. It's time to re-evaluate your command of the English language, as far as I detect.

10 minutes ago, Strange said:

As you are obviously a non-native speaker, I think you should listen to the people who are telling you that your understanding of your second language is wrong. (At least one of whom is a professional writer.)

Professional writers may make errors too. (Unless they possess omniscience, a property we don't detect to be scientifically feasible!)

You ought to own up to your errors.

Nitpick: English is not my second language.

22 minutes ago, Strange said:

As that is not what teleonomy means, according to all sources (including your own) I have reported you for trolling.

1. Teleonomy does in fact concern purpose in the realm of science rather than religion.
2. Wikipedia/teleonomy:  "Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention."
3. You persistently misread the sentence above; for that teleonomy contrasts purposeful goal directness, as typically expressed in the realm of teleology wrt divine/human intention, does not mean that teleonomy contrasts purpose/goal directness overall!
4. Why do you think the description opens with: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures .."?
5. Clearly, teleonomy contrasts not merely purpose and goal-directness, but instead, it contrasts purpose and goal-driectness when it comes to typically unevidenced nonsense, such as teleology wrt divine/human intention.
6. You have a ridiculous command of English, and so do your comrades here! 

27 minutes ago, Strange said:

APPARENT purpose means there is the appearance of purpose even though there is no purpose.

This is confirmed two sentences later, where it goes on to say: "Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention."

So your own source says that there is NO PURPOSE in teleonomy. Otherwise a new word would not have been needed.

If you again claim that these sentences mean the opposite of what they say then I will have to report you for trolling.

 

And your second quote says nothing about purpose.

1. Apparent purpose does not mean that.
2. Ironically, the subsequent sentence means that teleonomy constrasts teleology, where purposeful goal directness is concerned with the divine/human intention.
3. This doesn't mean teleonomy constrasts purpose, it means it contrasts purpose when concerned with teleology!
4. And yet you accuse me of mangling English? Ridiculous!

Quote

Is English a second language? If so, I can make some allowance for that.

If not, you appear to have severe reading comprehension problems. Moontanman does not say that teleonomy doesn't exist, he is saying that it is used to refer to cases where purpose doesn't exist.

See above.

1. Bender unavoidably mentions that actual purpose is constrained to religion. (i.e. teleonomy doesn't exist!)
2. Quote from Bender: "This is getting repetetive and boring. Please stop misquoting respected scientists. Archeo-purpose is not real purpose, much like teleonomy, which is specifically invented to be able to use purpose-oriented language in the absence of purpose. If you want actual purpose, it is teleology you are looking for."

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

There aren't any. It is just that thoughtfuhk is unable to understand English.

That you are unable to understand basic sentence structure, does not suddenly warrant that I am "unable to understand English" !

20 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is correct.I was going to post as such.

That is demonstrably false. Well, it's "correct" if you misread as Strange did. 

Quote

You don't know what you are talking about and your understanding of the words you use is seriously wanting.

See my underlining of Strange's misunderstanding above.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Several people have pointed out why the definitions of the word do not agree with what you say. With evidence cited both from your own sources and from other sources.

I am yet to detect any such expressions as valid. What I said is that there exists scientific purpose, namely teleonomy. Others have consistently argued against this scientific purpose, in favor of some supposedly "real" or "actual" teleological purpose. In other words, people here have been willing to posit that purpose is merely "real" or "actual" in the realm of religion, instead of science as teleonomy underlines.

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is entirely reasonable when the problem is that you are making up your own definitions for words.

Contrarily, I've largely been duplicating Wikipedia/teleonomy. 

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

You appear to think that people are unaware of it because they know what it is and you don't.

1. On the contrary, many people had argued as if teleonomy didn't exist. Teleonomy may describe organic goal-directness, contrary to the teleological argument.
2. Example, where user Moontonman argued of purpose merely in the realm of the "supernatural":  "Not if the hypothesis calls on a word used in place of supernatural to describe something equally illusionary. Teleonomy only describes an illusion of purpose, which much like the supernatural, is not falsifiable... "

Quote

Except they say that teleonomy does not involve purpose. Contrary to your claims in the OP.

I am curious if you actually see the definitions saying something different, or if you are just ignoring what they say and pretending they agree with you. 

But it looks your purpose is to troll the forum.

1. Where is it supposedly mention that teleonomy is supposedly lack of purpose.
2. Could you point show us where in the opening line of teleonomy your opinion supposedly exists?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

You are the one who is confused. Teleonomy does not mean "purpose in the realm of science/objectivity." (It means a lack of purpose despite appearances.)

The fact that you have to redefine/invent the meanings of words in order to try and defend your opinions perhaps suggests that your opinions/beliefs are not well-founded.

You are, of course, free to have your own belief about the purpose of life. But you cannot (a) pretend it is the only propose and (b) pretend your belief is supported by science.

Anyone can make up their own purpose for life (as there isn't an objective, or "real", purpose) and they would all be just as valid as your idea.

1. I need not redefine anything as such.
2. Opening line in Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning
3. Another line from Wikipedia/Teleonomy: "It would seem useful to rigidly restrict the term teleonomic to systems operating on the basis of a program of coded information."

11 hours ago, Bender said:

Studiot is now the fourth or fifth person here to point out that you misread it. That should make you think.

It is clear that many are unaware of teleonomy. That many had been unaware, does not suddenly warrant that I had "misread it". 

Thus far no evidence has been provided for this supposed misreading.

Quote

I did. I carefully studied your sources, read the paper and watched the video. The conclusion is that you misinterpreted all of them in a way that reminds of New agers who use quotes from scientists to prove telepathy or homeopathy.  

You are yet to provide any evidence of such supposed "misreading".

It would be advisable that you avoid blathering on absent evidence!

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

In order to be helpful, I checked carefully the right and proper definitions and usage of these words from impeccable sources, rather than Wikipedia or youtube.

 

 

 

 

 

Now we are all agree that teleology is connected with the purpose of a process or action in some way.

 

However it is pretty clear from the OED that there is no purpose whatsoever involved with teleonomy.

Which I why noted your original post and later statements to be self contradictory.

 

To be helpful I have included the definition of apparent and deduce that since there is no purpose associated with teleonomy, the use of definition (1) cannot be the definition meant in the more wooly Wikipedia statement.

That leaves us with definition (2), which says, as everyone else seems to have understood, that there may be a semblance of purpose but it is illusory.

 

Yet you have stated several times there to be an associated purpose.

 

A final note. I see that teleonomy is restricted to living systems. So examples involving non living systems are void, which is a pity because I can think of many good ones.

1. Ironically, the definitions of teleonomy you cited align nicely with the OP. (Wikipedia also links to research discussions, so Wikipedia is not as terrible as you present. It is not very scientific to avoid research discussions, and merely rely on dictionary definitions!)
2. Science itself comprises of models, that may not be precisely what the cosmos is. This does not suddenly warrant that science is illusory! 
3. In a youtube video, Richard Dawkins also describes purpose in the realm of man-made items. (See wikipedia teleonomy page)

1 hour ago, studiot said:

If the second part of your answer was a reason/justification for the first part (lashing out), what would you call lashing out without thinking?

 

The second part arises because

 

1) You failed to correctly read the definition of a teleonomy argument.

1.) How did I supposedly fail to read the definition of teleonomy?

2.) How does my supposed failure to read the definition of teleonomy remove the fact that you sillily confused religious purpose with scientific purpose?

Quote

 

I have highlighted the all important word.

You have, in your OP, singularly failed to demonstrate that there is any purposefulness at all, it is all assumed.

So arguments about what sort of purposefulness are moot.

You should, of course, also provide a working definition of purpose to measure discussion against.

1.) That teleonomic purpose is apparent does not suddenly warrant that discussions regarding purpose is moot.

2.) See on YouTube, Richard Dawkins' non moot discussion regarding purpose. (as cited in Wikipedia/telenomy, in the OP)

4 hours ago, Bender said:

This is getting repetetive and boring. Please stop misquoting respected scientists. Archeo-purpose is not real purpose, much like teleonomy, which is specifically invented to be able to use purpose-oriented language in the absence of purpose. If you want actual purpose, it is teleology you are looking for.

Are you a new ager? Are you aware that you sound like a new ager?

1.) Are you theistic? No such misquoting occurred; you persist to insist that teleology is the only type of "real" purpose. (There is no evidence for deities btw, so teleological purpose isn't "real" as far as science goes!)

2.) You ought to recognize that Dawkins describes purpose in the realm of science, rather than religion. Teleonomy is real, and such describes real phenomena.

Perhaps it is time that you update your prior knowledge, for it is clear that you were unaware of teleonomy prior to entering this discussion!

3.) To clarify, "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness", as Dawkins mentions, may be thought of in terms of the topic of randomness :

1. For example, Juergen Schmidhuberunderlines that it is sensible to describe the universe from the scope of "short programs" (i.e. reasonably, the laws of physics) instead of truly random processes. He then expresses that it is sensible that the cosmos is "pseudorandom", rather than truly random, i.e. the cosmos comprises of processes involving random components, however with overarching non-random structures. (Similar to how evolution concerns random mutations, all under the paradigm of non-random selection.)
2. Likewise, as far as I can detect, Dawkins refers to "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness", to be scientific processes regarding goal directness, minus the teleological baggage, i.e. purposiveness minus theistic nonsense! This is likely why Dawkins introduces "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose" immediately after mentioning the term pseudo-purposiveness. (Perhaps you are confusing Dawkins' use of the word "pseudo" with pseudoscience, and so you persist to falsely express that purpose cannot be in the realm of science, despite contrary evidence!)

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Studiot said:
Nice. analogy +1

-1, terrible display of common sense.

The analogy is merely nice if you confuse purpose in the realm of science, with purpose in the realm of religion.

It ought to be a crime to confuse Science and Religion on these forums.

Once more, the OP concerns objective/scientific purpose, i.e. teleonomy, rather than religious/subjective purpose i.e. teleological argument.

1 hour ago, Bender said:

You seem to be confusing thermodynamic entropy, which is a statistical property of many-particle systems, with the entropy used in the paper you keep linking to, which defines entropy as the amount of future histories available to single particles.

The authors see similarities between how their algorithm works and how evolution works: trial and error, but any other deep connection is purely speculative. It is hardly the first time scientists have simulated complex emergent behaviour with a very stupid instruction set, so I don't see why this would be particularly special (apart from the ability to redefine certain problems in a convex way, which allows them to be solved more efficiently.).

1.) On the contrary, on January 31, I had long pointed out the particular entropy used in the paper, and I had long pointed out that programmers often work with compressed input spaces for the sake of enhanced efficiency!

1.b) Quote from me on January 31: "Shannon entropy does not prevent the measurement of the difference between conscious and unconscious states. (As indicated by the writers, Shannon entropy was used to circumvent the enormous values in the EEG results. It is typical in programming to use approximations or do compressions of the input space!)".

Quote

Your premise that evolution automatically leads to intelligence is further compomised by the fact it took so long for multicellular life to emerge. Beyond that, you seem to suggest this race for intelligence is maximised, ie as fast as possible, which raises the question why dinosaurs didn't get there. Many of them had free hands and they had hundreds of millions of years.

2.) My hypothesis doesn't explicitly mention that evolution favors intelligence.

2.b.) Instead, it clearly mentions that entropy maximization may be steeper as species get more intelligent.

2.c) Why bother to falsely accuse my hypothesis?

2.d) Nitpick: Why do you feel a long length of time prevents evolution from leading to intelligence? You are aware that evolution indeed, lead to intelligence, right? Do you not detect your own brain to be intelligent, having resulted from billions of years of evolution?

Quote

Now if we for the sake of the argument assume this far-fetched premise is correct, that still leaves an even larger leap to purpose. For this final leap, you haven't provided the first step toward a tiniest hint of possible evidence, so it can only be a leap of faith.

3.) If you pay attention to the false accusations you made (as I approached in points 2 to 2-c above), you may come to notice the evidence; i.e. intelligent things reasonably maximize entropy ("Causal Entropic Forces"), and AGI/ASI will be yet another way entropy is maximized, at even steeper rates, i.e. AGI/ASI shall reasonably eventually maximize entropy more than humans, by way of enhanced cognitive task performance! 

3.b) Causal Entropic Forces, by Alex Wissner Gross, PhD: "Recent advances in fields ranging from cosmology to computer science have hinted at a possible deep connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, but no formal physical relationship between them has yet been established. Here, we explicitly propose a first step toward such a relationship in the form of a causal generalization of entropic forces that we find can cause two defining behaviors of the human ‘‘cognitive niche’’—tool use and social cooperation—to spontaneously emerge in simple physical systems."

...

Quote

You seem to be the one doing the confusing. And please don't reply to this with the same Dawkins quote: nobody here shares your very liberal and apologetic interpretation of his words.

4.) As I had long stated, Dawkins' introduction of terms archeo and neo purpose, occur as scientific terms, rather than religious terms. The thing about science, is that it applies regardless of your opinions!

4 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

A blacksmith makes two knives- they are, for all practical purposes, identical.
A surgeon buys one of the knives and uses it to save people.
A mugger buys the other and uses it to kill.

The knives have no purpose until someone chooses what they wish to do with it.

 

Unless there's "someone" who is choosing what mankind is for, mankind has no purpose.

And the idea that the "someone" exists is not science, because it's not testable.

 

1. Of what significance do you feel your remark above evokes wrt the OP?
2. It looks like you didn't bother to at least read Wikipedia/Teleonomy (as pointed out in the OP)!
3. Note: The OP concerns purpose in the realm of science/objectivity, rather than subjectivity/teleological argument. Please don't confuse purpose in the realm of science (teleonomy), with purpose in the realm of religion (teleological argument...).
4. It ought to be a crime on these forums to confuse Science and religion, as you're doing in your response above!

Example: Richard Dawkins described the properties of "archeo-purpose" (by natural selection) and "neo-purpose" (by evolved adaptation) in his talk on the "Purpose of Purpose". Dawkins attributes the brain's flexibility as an evolutionary feature in adapting or subverting goals to making neo-purpose goals on an overarching evolutionary archeo-purpose. Language allows groups to share neo-purposes, and cultural evolution - occurring much faster than natural evolution - can lead to conflict or collaborations.

16 hours ago, Bender said:

1) Some pyromaniacs might attempt to, but as a species, that is clearly not the case.

2) I hope we have enough forethought to build in Asimov's laws so any AGI doesn't attempt to detonate all of our nuclear weapons.

3) Why do you think so? Nature clearly does not employ the entropy maximisation algorithm you linked to. I have never seen a pendulum spontaneously swing to an inverted position. 

1.) On the contrary, higher degrees of consciousness, reasonably yields increased entropy, such that it is maximized; as long revealed in the OP. 

1.b) Source-a: "We present evidence that conscious states result from higher entropy and complexity in the number of configurations of pairwise connections".

1.c) Source-b: "Recent advances in fields ranging from cosmology to computer science have hinted at a possible deep connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, but no formal physical relationship between them has yet been established. Here, we explicitly propose a first step toward such a relationship in the form of a causal generalization of entropic forces that we find can cause two defining behaviors of the human ‘‘cognitive niche’’—tool use and social cooperation—to spontaneously emerge in simple physical systems"

2.) Humans may not be relevant after the creation of AGI/ASI.

3.) As you may see in the sources above, nature may reasonably "find ways" to maximize entropy, by creating smarter and smarter things. In our case, nature will "use humans" to build smarter things, namely AGI/ASI.

10 hours ago, Bender said:

Ok, so what is the relevance of a computer algorithm that guides a particle to the centre of a box?

1. We reasonably maximize entropy.
2. AGI will maximize entropy to a larger degree, occupying more macrostates than humans. (More cognitive tasks)
3. Nature reasonably "finds ways" to build entropy maximizers, and in our case, nature is reasonably using humans to construct better things, namely (2).

On 4/5/2018 at 12:48 PM, Lasse said:

I believe the Einstein is right. I do not exactly know since it can not yet explain my metaphysical values but for sure so far perfectly points every physical entities whereabout and whatabout(energy, matter in space (time)

I am excited about what our scientists seek to discover and understand.

I believe (I dont exactly know) but I sense that Science raises Humanity out of darkness.

Does science is my religion than?

Q: Can Science be my religion?

A: No. Archaic Science/Religion/Mythology became Modern Science in the scientific revolution. So, Modern science (what we call science today), is not religion.

9 hours ago, Bender said:

Now you lost me completely. What does this have to do with an inverted pendulum? And what does either have to do with this thread? 

1. My prior answer referred to spontaneity wrt the particle's behaviour in figure 2. "(a) A particle in a box is forced toward the center of its box."
2. You had asked about figure 2.

2 hours ago, Bender said:

Yes, that is the one I am referring to. Did you read it? Do you think fig 2 shows a spontaneous process?

As far as I detect, when describing particles, some degree of spontaneity tends to enter the scene, in the regime of the uncertainty principle.

1 hour ago, Bender said:

Why do you keep linking to a computer algorithm that happens to employ a weighing function loosely based on the concept of entropy? Just look at fig 2. Does that look like a spontaneous process? Are inverted pendulums naturally stable? 

See Dr. Wissner's paper, "Causal Entropic Forces".

6 hours ago, Bender said:

Ok, I guess I was thinking about spontaneous processes rather than computer algorithms. Why do you think an engineered problem solving/control algorithm is relevant to this topic?

My hypothesis underlines that nature is "finding ways" to maximize entropy, and doing so, nature "finds ways" to build smarter and smarter things. Humans are reasonably ways to engender smarter things, namely something engineered, i.e. Artificial General Intelligence. (See principle of maximum entropy from the entropy maximization page, or see Dr. Wissner's paper for more details)

Quote

If it is a hypothesis, why do you present is as fact? How can your hypothesis, which diverges from the null hypothesis, be falsified?

On the contrary, the human purpose thing of mine, had long been presented as a hypothesis. (See the OP. Note that in science, hypotheses may comprise of facts!)

Quote

Except he doesn't mention "purpose in the realm of science". That's what you somehow make of it.

Contrarily, you quoted Dawkins scientific discussion yourself, you quoted him introducing some scientific terms, including "archeo purpose". He also introduces another term, "neo purpose", on the grounds of science, rather than non-science. 

Quote

Why do you think it signifies "presence of purpose"? With archeo and neo, he simply wanted some catchy words for pseudo and actual. Catchy words make a great speech.     

1. Yes, archeo purpose is the kind of pseudopurpose, such that reasons for biological parts derive from long standing natural selection, minus purpose associated with intelligent design, or human intention concerning deities or subjective processes (This is where Richard separates archeo purpose from theistic endeavour), while neo purpose may concern human the goals of man-made components, from the scope of human design.
2. No, both archeo and neo purpose, seek to describe applicable tiers of purpose, so one is not actual, instead both apply. In fact Dawkins mentions that neo purpose may contain archeo purpose.

Quote

It doesn't oppose the OP. It is simply delightfully applicable.

No need to use the plural, though. I assume other readers don't need my enlightenment. Still, didactically, I think it would be more valuable if you found the link by yourself.

It immediately answers all other points.

1. I had long established that my hypothesis aligns with the overall concept that Dawkin's human/purpose discussion entails.
2. Dawkins mentions some sweet spot of flexibility and inflexibility, and additionally, he mentions a paradox, i.e. a sub-optimal point contrary to what humans ought to be doing.
3. I argue that given evidence of entropy maximization in tandem with rising intelligence, the sweet spot aligns with the creation of AGI, something predicted to generate more entropy by way of human exceeding cognitive task performance.

Quote

Anything life on Earth does is negligible in terms of entropy on a solar system scale anyway.

Entropy maximization is not limited to one point in nature.