Jump to content

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


thoughtfuhk
 Share

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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

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? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).
Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:
  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).

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

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

Reason of somebody existence can be told after many years (usually hundreds, thousands etc. from eternal perspective) e.g. without father and mother of Einstein (go deeper and deeper in family tree, searching for older predecessors), he would not be born, and would not be able to influence science.. (and somebody else would have to take his role in other version of the Universe)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

Reason of somebody existence can be told after many years (usually hundreds, thousands etc. from eternal perspective) e.g. without father and mother of Einstein (go deeper and deeper in family tree, searching for older predecessors), he would not be born, and would not be able to influence science.. (and somebody else would have to take his role in other version of the Universe)

 

Did you somehow think that was relevant to the discussion in hand?

Do you recognise that the "someone" in this instance is the entity which designed and created mankind- ind short- God?

God doesn't have a family tree.

The existence or non existence of God isn't a scientific matter.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 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.

 

Nice. analogy +1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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.

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.).

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.

 

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.

18 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

It ought to be a crime on these forums to confuse Science and religion, as you're doing in your response above

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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!

Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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!

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

-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.

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.

 

Quote

Wiki

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 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!)

 

 

 

Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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

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

 

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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!

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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

 

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.

Quote

OED

Teleonomy

Biological term

The property of living systems of being organized towards the attainment of ends without true purposiveness.

 

 

Quote

OED

Apparent

1) Open to sight, plainly visible.

Manifest to the understanding, evident, obvious, palpable.

2) Seeming to the mind or senses, as distinct from what really is.

 

 

Quote

OED

Teleology

1) The branch of Philosophy that deals with ends or final causes.

 

2) Later, the belief that nature shows signs of divine or cosmic design or purpose.

 

3) Now also the belief or theory that certain phenomena or acts are to be explained in terms of purpose or intention; explanation in such terms; )evidence of purposiveness in nature.

 

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.

Edited by studiot
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

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?

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)

 

 

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!)
5

 

On 4/7/2018 at 2:12 PM, dimreepr said:

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.

Who knew I'm psychic? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2018 at 6:01 AM, thoughtfuhk said:

However, given my hypothesis above, upon discussions, especially atheistic persons tend to confuse teleonomy (purpose in the realm of science/objectivity)

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.

Edited by Strange
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)
Edited by thoughtfuhk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

It is clear that many are unaware of teleonomy.

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

7 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Ironically, the definitions you cited align nicely with the OP.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.