# The purpose of human life is reasonably a scientific, aka non-theistic topic!

## Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Yes.

But I am challenging that that is the case.

Therefore, and if I am right,

43 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

You ought to be willing to update your prior beliefs, given new evidence!

Yes?

• Replies 91
• Created

#### Popular Days

1 hour ago, studiot said:

But I am challenging that that is the case.

1. I am yet to detect any novel data from your expressions; note that I did not express that structures are absent "sub-goals".
2. As an example, the first few points made in a url from the OP describes a cycle such that sub-goals are performed; as humans get smarter and smarter, more and more sub-goals are clearly performed.
3. A quote from url above: "a.) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy. (See source)... ..."
4. Crucially the purpose I hypothesize for human life, reasonably succeeds the multifarious sub-goals that humans may have, on the boundary of entropy as described in the OP.
Quote

Therefore, and if I am right,

Yes?

Yes, you ought to be able to update your prior beliefs, based on new evidence.

Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:
1. I am yet to detect any novel data from your expressions; note that I did not express that structures are absent "sub-goals".
2. As an example, the first few points made in a url from the OP describes a cycle such that sub-goals are performed; as humans get smarter and smarter, more and more sub-goals are clearly performed.
3. A quote from url above: "a.) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy. (See source)... ..."
4. Crucially the purpose I hypothesize for human life, reasonably succeeds the multifarious sub-goals that humans may have, on the boundary of entropy as described in the OP.

Yes, you ought to be able to update your prior beliefs, based on new evidence.

Or are you just being funny?

##### Share on other sites

Quote

The purpose of human life is reasonably a scientific, aka non-theistic topic!

1) who said so there is purpose.. ? If you're creating Universe with certain physical constants you are interested, you are testing, whether they will work or not, and what will be outcome..

2) human life? what with other terrestrial life forms? what with extraterrestrial life forms? and what with extraterrestrial intelligent life forms.. ?

Certainly, life forms that better understand environment in which they exist have higher chance for surviving.. Therefor development of better and better sensors analyzing environment (cells detecting light, monocular, binocular vision, allowing to measure distance to e.g. prey..... ears, detecting sound, then double them to be able tell direction of sound and distance, etc. etc.). Sensors require organ which will analyze the all data, therefore development of brain, and then intelligence to be able analyze data at higher levels..

3) science is yet another level of environmental analysis by life form, but with mathematical formulas used to describe it

4) quantum physics is the highest level of analyzing the environment by the intelligent life form.

ps. You should replace "human" by "intelligent life form" the next time. This way you won't exclude extraterrestrial intelligent life forms from your debates.

Edited by Sensei
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

1) who said so there is purpose.. ? If you're creating Universe with certain physical constants you are interested, you are testing, whether they will work or not, and what will be outcome..

2) human life? what with other terrestrial life forms? what with extraterrestrial life forms? and what with extraterrestrial intelligent life forms.. ?

Certainly, life forms that better understand environment in which they exist have higher chance for surviving.. Therefor development of better and better sensors analyzing environment (cells detecting light, monocular, binocular vision, allowing to measure distance to e.g. prey..... ears, detecting sound, then double them to be able tell direction of sound and distance, etc. etc.). Sensors require organ which will analyze the all data, therefore development of brain, and then intelligence to be able analyze data at higher levels..

3) science is yet another level of environmental analysis by life form, but with mathematical formulas used to describe it

4) quantum physics is the highest level of analyzing the environment by the intelligent life form.

ps. You should replace "human" by "intelligent life form" the next time. This way you won't exclude extraterrestrial intelligent life forms from your debates.

1.) That I refer to human purpose, does not necessarily warrant an exclusion of other potential human level like constructs. (I merely refer to humans, as thus far, humans are demonstrably generally intelligent)

2.) Albeit, in my hypothesis, I had already underlined a sequence of paths entropy maximization, which is reasonably not limited to the scope of this planet!

Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2.) Albeit, in my hypothesis, I had already underlined a sequence of paths entropy maximization, which is reasonably not limited to the scope of this planet!

So our purpose is to fly into a black hole, maximising entropy?

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Contrarily, science seeks to be objective.

Can you explain why you assert that science being objective is somehow contrary?

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Also, teleonomy concerns likelihoods of outcomes regarding organic functions. No where are things specified as indubitably known.

Quote

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.

I'm not sure that "apparent" is the way you are presenting this. Are you asserting this "apparent purposefulness" is real?

Quote

The hypothesis didn't say that "Agi was in charge".

If I am reading this correctly then you are only asserting an illusory connection between human purpose and AI?

Quote

The hypothesis largely concerns entropy, and entropy is not "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...

##### Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Moontanman said:

Can you explain why you assert that science being objective is somehow contrary?

Ten oz' prior words: " Guessing, even educated guessing, is a subjective endeavor. "

My earlier response simply underlined that science seeks to be objective, rather than subjective.

Quote

I'm not sure that "apparent" is the way you are presenting this. Are you asserting this "apparent purposefulness" is real?

If I am reading this correctly then you are only asserting an illusory connection between human purpose and AI?

1. Alex Wissner cross underlines some connection between entropy maximization and intelligence. In a similar way, I underline a potential connection between entropy maximization and AGI (a type of intelligence, akin to human level).
2. Before the atom was empirically observed, the atom had been "apparent" mathematically. You ought not to conflate apparentness, with illusion.
Quote

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...

1.) You are still attached to the teleological argument, and regardless of your opinions, teleonomy concerns non-theistic paradigms, in the realm of science. (There is a difference between science and non-science/non-falsifiable concepts)

2.) Sample of teleonomic purpose

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.

Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

21 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Alex Wissner cross underlines some connection between entropy maximization and intelligence. In a similar way, I underline a potential connection between entropy maximization and AGI

Do you think entropy maximisation is a purpose?

I would argue that a system left on its own, in absence of purpose, is going to evolve towards more entropy.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bender said:

Do you think entropy maximisation is a purpose?

I would argue that a system left on its own, in absence of purpose, is going to evolve towards more entropy.

As far as my awareness of evidence goes, particular teleonomic purposes are maintained as systems evolve towards more entropy production.

This means that entropy maximization paradigms may occur as functions on the aforesaid purposes, including processes regarding evolution.

##### Share on other sites

But entropy production fundamentally is a purely statistical process, governed by random chance.

##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Bender said:

But entropy production fundamentally is a purely statistical process, governed by random chance.

1. There is a type of purpose that is said to contrast randomness or pseudorandomness in evolution.
2. That purpose is teleological or religious purpose. (See Wikipedia/teleological argument)
3. However, pseudorandomness does not oppose teleononomic purpose. (See Richard Dawkins' work in Wikipedia/teleonomy)
4. Excerpt from Wikipedia/randomness/religion: "If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation."
5. This means, a religious person may likely find purpose to be infeasible given religious aversion to pseudorandomness/randomness/evolution.
Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:
1. There is a type of purpose that is said to contrast randomness or pseudorandomness in evolution.
2. That purpose is teleological or religious purpose. (See Wikipedia/teleological argument)
3. However, pseudorandomness does not oppose teleononomic purpose. (See Richard Dawkins' work in Wikipedia/teleonomy)
4. Excerpt from Wikipedia/randomness/religion: "If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation."
5. This means, a religious person may likely find purpose to be infeasible given religious aversion to pseudorandomness/randomness/evolution.

Clearly, your purpose is to obsess about shit that doesn't really matter, the entropy of which will probably end in the same way your previous identical thread did.

##### Share on other sites

19 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:
1. There is a type of purpose that is said to contrast randomness or pseudorandomness in evolution.
2. That purpose is teleological or religious purpose. (See Wikipedia/teleological argument)
3. However, pseudorandomness does not oppose teleononomic purpose. (See Richard Dawkins' work in Wikipedia/teleonomy)
4. Excerpt from Wikipedia/randomness/religion: "If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation."
5. This means, a religious person may likely find purpose to be infeasible given religious aversion to pseudorandomness/randomness/evolution.

1)I have seen no evidence of purpose in evolution.

2)Irrelevant as long as purpose is not demonstrated

3)You keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which clearly states "apparent" purpose. Despite your earlier claim of the contrary, the context makes it very clear that "illusionary" is what is meant here.

4)I can only guess at the relevance.

5)This makes no sense at all. Religious people dislike those things "because" they like purpose. In fact, a desire to find purpose is what drives a lot of people to religion.

##### Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Bender said:

1)I have seen no evidence of purpose in evolution.

2)Irrelevant as long as purpose is not demonstrated

3)You keep linking to the Wikipedia article, which clearly states "apparent" purpose. Despite your earlier claim of the contrary, the context makes it very clear that "illusionary" is what is meant here.

4)I can only guess at the relevance.

5)This makes no sense at all. Religious people dislike those things "because" they like purpose. In fact, a desire to find purpose is what drives a lot of people to religion.

1 and 2). See Wikipedia/teleonomy. (Key words to consider: Entropy Maximization, Evolution of general intelligence, teleonomic purpose)

Sample of teleonomic purpose wrt evolution:

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.

3) You ought not to conflate apparentness, with illusion. Before the atom was empirically observed, the atom had been "apparent" mathematically. (This does not neccesitate that the atom was "illusory")

4.) You initially mentioned:

4.ii) Thus my earlier response simply underlined that, teleonomic purpose may particularly describe goals in the regime of biological processes, where biological processes may concern entropy maximization and evolution. (This means that purpose is not necessarily separate from evolution, as you had claimed above.)

It is clear that you were simply not initially aware of teleonomy, you gave the typical religious rejection of purpose, on some false grounds that randomness in evolution negated purpose. (Teleonomic purpose is compatible with evolution aligned structures, and so teleonomic purpose is consistent with evolution based things.!)

Are you religious?

5.) I didn't say that theists ignored purpose; I said instead, that theists reject purpose in a realm governed by randomness/pseudorandomness. This means that theists find purpose to be absent, in scenarios where randomness may be relevant, and this is why theists tend to reject evolution.Is English your first language?

Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

1-3) I read through the Wikipedia article you like so much in greater detail in case I missed something. Did you notice that the article carefully avoids the word "purpose" by replacing it with "apparent purpose" or "end-directedness" and even uses words specifically invented to avoid a confusion such as yours: "puposiveness" instead of "purposefulness"  ?

It is also interesting to note that the concept of teleonomy was invented to be able to use goal-driven terminology that seems to imply purpose when there is none. (Eg "The Wood Thrush migrates in the fall in order to escape the inclemency of the weather and the food shortages of the northern climates.").

Finally, your atom argument is a red herring. Eg the rotation of the sun around the Earth or Aristoteles' impetus were apparent for quite a while. This is clearly not the intention of the author of the Wikipedia article.

4) I see three options:

a) you are be using a different definition of "purpose" than most people.

b) you have an agenda

c) you are trolling

Could you perhaps clarify which it is or what I am missing?

(I thought it was pretty obvious that I'm not religious. That remark points kinda points me in direction of option c, btw. Are you religious, because that could point to option b?)

5) theists reject evolution because their religious text says otherwise. No need to overestimate their motives.

(English is my third language btw, but I understand enough to know what "apparent" or "purpose" means. Is it your first language? )

Edited by Bender
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bender said:

1-3) I read through the Wikipedia article you like so much in greater detail in case I missed something. Did you notice that the article carefully avoids the word "purpose" by replacing it with "apparent purpose" or "end-directedness" and even uses words specifically invented to avoid a confusion such as yours: "puposiveness" instead of "purposefulness"  ?

1. I don't detect the relevance of your remark above, for I tend to refer to reasonable purpose wrt humans, in the OP.
2. Note: The article used to bolster its points, both the words: &nbsp;"puposiveness" and "purposefulness", not  "puposiveness" instead of "purposefulness" as you falsely claimed.
Quote

It is also interesting to note that the concept of teleonomy was invented to be able to use goal-driven terminology that seems to imply purpose when there is none. (Eg "The Wood Thrush migrates in the fall in order to escape the inclemency of the weather and the food shortages of the northern climates.").

Your opinion is noted. Which portion of the teleonomy description did you extract such a silly opinion?

Quote

Finally, your atom argument is a red herring. Eg the rotation of the sun around the Earth or Aristoteles' impetus were apparent for quite a while. This is clearly not the intention of the author of the Wikipedia article.

1. Ironically, your initial remark regarding purposefullness/illusions, is a red herring, and thus I returned the atom response.
2. Notably,  I did not say that all things that were apparent were valid. I simply underlined that apparentness should not be confused for illusion, as you had claimed. By extension,  I referred to apparent things in the realm of modern science, not archaic/Aristotelian science.
Quote

4) I see three options:

a) you are be using a different definition of "purpose" than most people.

b) you have an agenda

c) you are trolling

Could you perhaps clarify which it is or what I am missing?

(I thought it was pretty obvious that I'm not religious. That remark points kinda points me in direction of option c, btw. Are you religious, because that could point to option b?)

5) theists reject evolution because their religious text says otherwise. No need to overestimate their motives.

(English is my third language btw, but I understand enough to know what "apparent" or "purpose" means. Is it your first language? )

1. The description of purpose used in the OP, is clearly linked in the teleonomy url. (Which you clearly were not familiar with prior to entering this discussion.)
2. It is still clear that you gave the typical religious dismissal of purpose in the realm of science. (i.e. Theists tend to observe purpose merely in the realm of paradigms such as the teleological argument.)
3. I still ponder whether you have spoken English for more than 2 years.

Lastly, I urge that you see Dawkins' video, for many of your misconceptions will likely be resolved. (Descriptions at minute 27:36)

Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

So it is option b) (you have an agenda). Thank you for clearing that out.

I am going to give you my personal analysis and perhaps you can snap out of your mental lock. (I will use the term "religious belief" quite liberally. Try not to be too offended.)

You seem to be in a state of cognitive dissonance : on the one hand, you hold a religious belief concerning the purpose of the human race, while on the other hand you resent religious beliefs (like me, you probably like feeling smug when watching Dawkins, which is hard if you hold such beliefs yourself).

You found an answer to your dissonance in teleonomy, which you molded to suit your beliefs. That would explain why when I read about it, I draw different conclusions than you. You are correct that I hadn't heard about it prior to this thread, but I found the wiki article quite informative.

Then the problem worsens as you make up apologetic nonsense, such as "apparent does not mean illusionary" thing or your entropy argument. Nature does not seek out ways to maximise entropy. In fact entropy maximisation isn't even a thing, only entropy increase, and that is a very stupid process. The only law related to this is dS/dt>=0. There is no law that says d^3S/dt^3=0 (maximisation of the increase in entropy)

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

To get to your agenda: I too think that we are heading towards an AI that is smarter than us, but I see no reason to draw in religious beliefs in purpose. I also doubt Dawkins would appreciate that you are using him as one of your profets.

##### Share on other sites

21 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Which portion of the teleonomy description did you extract such a silly opinion?

Quote

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms

APPARENT. In other words, not purposeful and goal directed.

Quote

Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness

CONTRASTED with PURPOSEFUL. In other words, not purposeful and goal directed.

Maybe English is not your first language, but either way you need to sharpen up your comprehension skills. Why use the word teleology if you don't understand what it means?

##### Share on other sites

22 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Lastly, I urge that you see Dawkins' video, for many of your misconceptions will likely be resolved. (Descriptions at minute 27:36)

From the minute you wanted me to watch and where he introduces archeo-purpose : "... a kind of pseudo-puposiveness, which I call archeo-purpose..."

Did you honestly not hear that yourself?

(I watched the whole video btw. Dawkins is a great speaker)

You might also want to watch min 38 again about the flexibility paradox. I'll leave it to you to figure out why I think that is relevant here.

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

APPARENT. In other words, not purposeful and goal directed.

You're late for the party :). This has already been pointed out repeatedly by me and others.

##### Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bender said:

So it is option b) (you have an agenda). Thank you for clearing that out.

I am going to give you my personal analysis and perhaps you can snap out of your mental lock. (I will use the term "religious belief" quite liberally. Try not to be too offended.)

You seem to be in a state of cognitive dissonance : on the one hand, you hold a religious belief concerning the purpose of the human race, while on the other hand you resent religious beliefs (like me, you probably like feeling smug when watching Dawkins, which is hard if you hold such beliefs yourself).

You found an answer to your dissonance in teleonomy, which you molded to suit your beliefs. That would explain why when I read about it, I draw different conclusions than you. You are correct that I hadn't heard about it prior to this thread, but I found the wiki article quite informative.

Then the problem worsens as you make up apologetic nonsense, such as "apparent does not mean illusionary" thing or your entropy argument. Nature does not seek out ways to maximise entropy. In fact entropy maximisation isn't even a thing, only entropy increase, and that is a very stupid process. The only law related to this is dS/dt>=0. There is no law that says d^3S/dt^3=0 (maximisation of the increase in entropy)

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

To get to your agenda: I too think that we are heading towards an AI that is smarter than us, but I see no reason to draw in religious beliefs in purpose. I also doubt Dawkins would appreciate that you are using him as one of your profets.

1.) Contrary to your false claim, entropy maximization exists.

1.b) Source-i: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_maximization

1.c) Source-ii: Causal Entropic Forces, by Dr. Alex Wissner Gross (Connection between entropy maximization and intelligence. I also linked these in the OP!)

2.) I need not believe in some religious purpose, because purpose may exist in the realm of science, instead of religion/objectivity.

In fact, I thought life was purposeless (and I had no issue with that as an atheist for several years), until I later encountered teleonomy some years ago. I then (still as an atheist) adjusted my prior knowledge, and developed a hypothesis regarding human purpose in the realm of science, as seen in the OP.

3.) I need not force Richard Dawkings to describe purpose in the realm of science, because he does that regardless of my input.

4.) Notably, teleonomy does not concern "apologetic nonsense", it concerns science rather than religion. You ought not to confuse those things!

6 hours ago, Strange said:

Maybe English is not your first language, but either way you need to sharpen up your comprehension skills. Why use the word teleology if you don't understand what it means?

1.) What nonsense of yours.

Quote

Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness

Your response: CONTRASTED with PURPOSEFUL. In other words, not purposeful and goal directed.

1.c) The entire sentence:

Quote

Teleonomy is sometimes contrasted with teleology, where the latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness, where latter is understood as a purposeful goal-directedness brought about through human or divine intention.

2.) Based on the fact that you omitted the remainder of text above, we now see how you came to misinterpret the clearly expressed words on Wikipedia/teleonomy page:

Quote

Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms

Your response: APPARENT. In other words, not purposeful and goal directed.

2.b) As you can see, while the page underlined that the latter was largely attributed with religion (aka the divine) or human intervention, the page does not exclude purpose driven processes in nature. (That teleology is attributed with  unevidenced divine or human intervention does not delete apparent purposefulness or goal directeness from teleonomy!)

In simple words, teleonomy is not merely contrasted with purposefulness, but instead, contrasted with purposefulness as typically expressed in teleology.

In fact, the page opens with this description for 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.

So, contrary to your claim, teleonomy does indeed concern goal directness, rather than not!

Why bother to lie about the content, or feign understanding, when your lack of comprehension is ironically, quite clearly demonstrated? Why did you lie while saying that teleonomy is not goal directed, when the very initial line on the page clearly expresses it as such?

6 hours ago, Bender said:

From the minute you wanted me to watch and where he introduces archeo-purpose : "... a kind of pseudo-puposiveness, which I call archeo-purpose..."

Did you honestly not hear that yourself?

What significance do you garner your comment above signifies? Does "a kind of pseudo-possessiveness" signify the absence of purpose? Why did you think Richard substantiated that phrase, with the terms "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose"?

6 hours ago, Bender said:

(I watched the whole video btw. Dawkins is a great speaker)

You might also want to watch min 38 again about the flexibility paradox. I'll leave it to you to figure out why I think that is relevant here.

I don't detect why you feel that portion of video opposes the OP, or any response of mine thus far.

Care to enlighten us?

6 hours ago, Bender said:

You're late for the party :). This has already been pointed out repeatedly by me and others.

He's late, and trivially demonstrably wrong. In fact, the page opens with this description for 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."

Strange misinterpreted some earlier line, (by ignoring the remainder of a sentence he quoted from the wiki page) and so Strange fell into an error. That error is quite odd, given the very initial sentence on the page, which expresses teleonomy to concern goal directness, rather than not as he falsely claimed!

Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

Quote

From the minute you wanted me to watch and where he introduces archeo-purpose : "... a kind of pseudo-puposiveness, which I call archeo-purpose..."

Did you honestly not hear that yourself?

Quote

What significance do you garner your comment above signifies? Does "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness" signify the absence of purpose? Why did you think Richard substantiated that phrase, with the terms "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose"?

To clarify, "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness" may be thought of in terms of the topic of randomness :

1. For example, Juergen Schmidhuber underlines 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!)
Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

17 hours ago, thoughtfuhk 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?

17 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

I then (still as an atheist) adjusted my prior knowledge, and developed a hypothesis regarding human purpose in the realm of science, as seen in the OP.

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

18 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

I need not force Richard Dawkings to describe purpose in the realm of science, because he does that regardless of my input.

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

16 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Perhaps you are confusing Dawkins' use of the word "pseudo" with pseudoscience

I'm not. I see no reason to assume pseudo means anything other than "looks like, but not the real thing", as in "apparent".

18 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

What significance do you garner your comment above signifies? Does "a kind of pseudo-possessiveness" signify the absence of purpose? Why did you think Richard substantiated that phrase, with the terms "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose"?

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.

18 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

I don't detect why you feel that portion of video opposes the OP, or any response of mine thus far.

Care to enlighten us?

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.

18 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Notably, teleonomy does not concern "apologetic nonsense"

Indeed it does not. There is nothing wrong with teleonomy.

##### Share on other sites

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.

Edited by thoughtfuhk
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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)

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?

Edited by Bender
##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

×