Scientific purpose of human species, may be to replicate universes

149 posts / 0 new
Last post
arakish's picture
Avant Brown: "For example,

Avant Brown: "For example, the hypothesis in the OP regarding AGI"

And you said at other times that it is a theory. Oops...

rmfr

Avant Brown's picture
Avant Brown: "For example,

Avant Brown: "For example, the hypothesis in the OP regarding AGI"

And you said at other times that it is a theory. Oops...

rmfr

The OP refers to a hypothesis regarding AGI. Do you have some sort of point?

arakish's picture
First you say it is a

First you say it is a hypothesis. Then you say it is a theory. Re-read the thread.

rmfr

Avant Brown's picture
First you say it is a

First you say it is a hypothesis. Then you say it is a theory. Re-read the thread.

rmfr

I can't find what you're referring to.
Could you please clarify by linking the relevant sequence in a response?

arakish's picture
Avant Brown: "Where did I

Avant Brown: "Where did I cite Wikipedia, as a primary source?"

In every post you have made. Nothing but Wikipedia is NOT an academic resource.

Which proves only one thing. You are a LIAR, kind sir. There ain't nobody who is working on a doctoral dissertation that would do nothing but quote Wikipedia. Here is a hint, I have a ScD. Do you know what that is?

You are nothing more than a young child trolling a new religion. Read these definitions, for they certainly described you (just insert AI where needed):

Religious Absolutist — any person who holds an inexorable belief in any religion, yet is applicable to any religious believer who holds an inexorable belief in any religion.

Apologist — a dastardly subset of the Religious Absolutists who practices apologetics, with nothing more than the presupposed conclusions known as confirmation bias, that have nothing to do with reason and rationality and factual information, creating irrational excuses and whatever conflicting ideas to justify their baseless assumptions, regardless of what the true facts are, using beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiney-ass pleas, due to an indoctrination conditioning that is so ingrained they never question the veracity of the nonsense they offer, or why they need to defend their faith at all.

Faith — the inexorable and schizophrenic delusional belief in something that cannot be verified or falsified. Additionally, it is the practice of training one’s mind to ignore evidence, logic, reason, critical thinking, and rationality, in exchange for being told what to think, while also being able to believe in faerie tales, and being proud of it rather than ashamed. Last, but not least, the true definition of Faith: the unrelenting belief in something that cannot be proven, or is proven to be false. The inexorable belief in lies when one can see the True Truth.

You are proselytizing to the wrong choir, little child.

rmfr

Avant Brown's picture
Avant Brown: "Where did I

Avant Brown: "Where did I cite Wikipedia, as a primary source?"

In every post you have made. Nothing but Wikipedia is NOT an academic resource.

Which proves only one thing. You are a LIAR, kind sir. There ain't nobody who is working on a doctoral dissertation that would do nothing but quote Wikipedia. Here is a hint, I have a ScD. Do you know what that is?

You are nothing more than a young child trolling a new religion. Read these definitions, for they certainly described you (just insert AI where needed):

Religious Absolutist — any person who holds an inexorable belief in any religion, yet is applicable to any religious believer who holds an inexorable belief in any religion.

Apologist — a dastardly subset of the Religious Absolutists who practices apologetics, with nothing more than the presupposed conclusions known as confirmation bias, that have nothing to do with reason and rationality and factual information, creating irrational excuses and whatever conflicting ideas to justify their baseless assumptions, regardless of what the true facts are, using beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiney-ass pleas, due to an indoctrination conditioning that is so ingrained they never question the veracity of the nonsense they offer, or why they need to defend their faith at all.

Faith — the inexorable and schizophrenic delusional belief in something that cannot be verified or falsified. Additionally, it is the practice of training one’s mind to ignore evidence, logic, reason, critical thinking, and rationality, in exchange for being told what to think, while also being able to believe in faerie tales, and being proud of it rather than ashamed. Last, but not least, the true definition of Faith: the unrelenting belief in something that cannot be proven, or is proven to be false. The inexorable belief in lies when one can see the True Truth.

You are proselytizing to the wrong choir, little child.

rmfr

  • I cite Wikipedia here, rather than long, dense sources, with the anticipation that one can in sufficient time, peruse enough of the Wikipedia sources, to make suitably prompt responses.
  • That does not suddenly warrant that I claimed Wikipedia items to be primary sources of research. This is why you'll be unable to quote me supposedly expressing Wikipedia as a primary source of academic research.
  • Lastly, I am an atheist, who does not subscribe to any form of religious endeavour. Why bother to fallaciously misqualify my orientation thereafter?
  • arakish's picture
    Avant Brown: "That does not

    Avant Brown: "That does not suddenly warrant that I claimed Wikipedia items to be primary sources of research."

    When it is all you cite, it is...

    rmfr

    Avant Brown's picture
    Avant Brown: "That does not

    Avant Brown: "That does not suddenly warrant that I claimed Wikipedia items to be primary sources of research."

    When it is all you cite, it is...

    rmfr

    Please summarize what I said in my prior response. I wish to gauge what you understand, from when I said that I mostly cite Wikipedia articles here, for convenience to other posters.

    There's no need for you to lie either, here are several examples of the instances where I cite sources other than Wikipedia:

    1. comment-129337

    2. comment-129372

    3. comment-129586

    4. comment-129360

    5. comment-129558
    ...

    arakish's picture
    A PhD candidate would not be

    A PhD candidate would not be relying solely on Wikipedia.

    But you still cite Wikipedia about ten times more often than any other.

    rmfr

    EDIT: removed pejorative and restated

    Avant Brown's picture
    A PhD candidate would not be

    A PhD candidate would not be relying solely on Wikipedia.

    But you still cite Wikipedia about ten times more often than any other.

    rmfr

    EDIT: removed pejorative and restated

    1. Is this forum a research journal, or research paper?

    ~

    2. If your answer to 1 is neither, why do you wish me to mostly present dense research papers to our audience here [I have cited dense resources a few times, but as I said before, for the purpose of convenience, as a pedagogical tool, I provide relevant Wikipedia references, in this forum setting. I of course, otherwise utilize dense papers as sources for my PhD work, and I have never once called Wikipedia a primary source.]

    arakish's picture
    Avant Brown: "Lastly, I am an

    Avant Brown: "Lastly, I am an atheist, who does not subscribe to any form of religious endeavour. Why bother to fallaciously misqualify my orientation thereafter?"

    Because you are proselytizing. Do you even know what that word means?

    Additionally, your behavior is exactly like a Religious Absolutist and Apologist. Just replace "computer" and/or AI as needed in the below definitions.

    Religious Absolutist – any person who holds an inexorable belief in any religion, yet is applicable to any religious believer who holds an inexorable belief in any religion.

    Apologist – a dastardly subset of the Religious Absolutists who practices apologetics, with nothing more than the presupposed conclusions known as confirmation bias, that have nothing to do with reason and rationality and factual information, creating irrational excuses and whatever conflicting ideas to justify their baseless assumptions, regardless of what the true facts are, using beguiling dialectical semantics, distorted and perverted data, emotional whiney-ass pleas, due to an indoctrination conditioning that is so ingrained they never question the veracity of the nonsense they offer, or why they need to defend their faith at all.

    Faith – the inexorable and schizophrenic delusional belief in something that cannot be verified or falsified. Additionally, it is the practice of training one’s mind to ignore evidence, logic, reason, critical thinking, and rationality, in exchange for being told what to think, while also being able to believe in faerie tales, and being proud of it rather than ashamed. Last, but not least, the true definition of Faith: The unrelenting and inexorable belief in something that cannot be proven, or is proven to be false. The inexorable belief in lies when one can see the true truth.

    rmfr

    David Killens's picture
    My new doctoral dissertation.

    My new doctoral dissertation.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Future of AI, by D. Killens

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    arakish's picture
    Oh David. Another needing

    Oh David. Another needing that 1K-Agree button. ROFLMAO, literally.

    rmfr

    Meepwned's picture
    Self aware AI have not been

    Self aware AI have not been shown to be possible. However, it has been shown possible to create AI that learn well. We do not understand our own consciousness, so we do not know if we can replicate it. We do not know the full depth of our own intelligence. We do not know the basics of essential principles required to create a replica of a chicken's intelligence.

    Until we know these things, on a sufficient level, all claims of true artificial intelligence, on a scale that rivals human intelligence, is wishful thinking and fictional.

    Avant Brown's picture
    Self aware AI have not been

    Self aware AI have not been shown to be possible. However, it has been shown possible to create AI that learn well. We do not understand our own consciousness, so we do not know if we can replicate it. We do not know the full depth of our own intelligence. We do not know the basics of essential principles required to create a replica of a chicken's intelligence.

    Until we know these things, on a sufficient level, all claims of tru

    Here's why your logic is laughable at best:

    1. Atomic theory occurred, like things in science, prior to experimental observation.
    2. By Meepwned's logic, atoms were fiction before experimental observation. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    You don't get how science works do you? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    I think you need to study the definition of fiction above, but also visit the definition of science.

    Meepwned's picture
    The concept is fiction. Even

    The concept is fiction. Even scientific concepts were fiction, by definition, at some point.

    Until it has been proven possible, I declare it fiction, and my source is the dictionary.

    Definition of fiction
    1a : something invented by the imagination or feigned
    specifically : an invented story
    … I'd found out that the story of the ailing son was pure fiction.
    — Andrew A. Rooney
    b : fictitious literature (such as novels or short stories)
    was renowned as a writer of fiction
    c : a work of fiction
    especially : NOVEL
    Her latest work is a fiction set during the Civil War.
    2a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth
    a legal fiction
    b : a useful illusion or pretense
    it was only a fiction of independence his mother gave him; he was almost totally under her power
    — G. A. Wagner
    3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination
    She engaged in fiction to escape painful realities.

    Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction

    You may notice it does not say untrue. It says things that was created by the imagination. If it has not been proven possible, it is speculation, aka imaginitive ideas or situations.

    Copied from the other thread.

    Avant Brown's picture
    The concept is fiction. Even

    The concept is fiction. Even scientific concepts were fiction, by definition, at some point.

    Until it has been proven possible, I declare it fiction, and my source is the dictionary.

    Definition of fiction
    1a : something invented by the imagination or feigned
    specifically : an invented story
    … I'd found out that the story of the ailing son was pure fiction.
    — Andrew A. Rooney
    b : fictitious literature (such as novels or short stories)
    was renowned as a writer of fiction
    c : a work of fiction
    especially : NOVEL
    Her latest work is a fiction set during the Civil War.
    2a : an assumption of a possibility as a fact irrespective of the question of its truth
    a legal fiction
    b : a useful illusion or pretense
    it was only a fiction of independence his mother gave him; he was almost totally under her power
    — G. A. Wagner
    3 : the action of feigning or of creating with the imagination
    She engaged in fiction to escape painful realities.

    Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fiction

    You may notice it does not say untrue. It says things that was created by the imagination. If it has not been proven possible, it is speculation, aka imaginitive ideas or situations.

    Copied from the other thread.

    I write science fiction, but I can still discern the difference between science and fiction, which you seem to be failing to do above.

    I think you've seen where you've gone wrong above.

    Why not just call scientific theory fiction? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    Hint it's not.

    arakish's picture
    Avant Brown: "I write science

    Avant Brown: "I write science fiction"

    What have you published?

    rmfr

    Cognostic's picture
    Both Meedweep and I want to

    Both Meedweep and I want to know if you read anything at all you post?

    Your video FITS THE DEFINITION OF 'FICTION' PERFECTLY. Why would you give a definition that absolutely proves you to be ignorant? Are you switching sides on the argument mid-center? That's a turkey thing to do,.

    Bible: Collection of NOVELS (Biographic stories, antidotes, fables and fairy tales about the existence of a once powerful wizard called Jesus, who was the way the truth and the light. Who runs about the country side doing magic tricks and impressing the ignorant.

    THANK YOU FOR PLAYING. HERE IS YOUR COOKIE. NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM AND PLAY WITH YOUR LEGOS. THE ADULTS ARE TALKING/

    Avant Brown's picture
    Both Meedweep and I want to

    Both Meedweep and I want to know if you read anything at all you post?

    Your video FITS THE DEFINITION OF 'FICTION' PERFECTLY. Why would you give a definition that absolutely proves you to be ignorant? Are you switching sides on the argument mid-center? That's a turkey thing to do,.

    Bible: Collection of NOVELS (Biographic stories, antidotes, fables and fairy tales about the existence of a once powerful wizard called Jesus, who was the way the truth and the light. Who runs about the country side doing magic tricks and impressing the ignorant.

    THANK YOU FOR PLAYING. HERE IS YOUR COOKIE. NOW GO TO YOUR ROOM AND PLAY WITH YOUR LEGOS. THE ADULTS ARE TALKING/

    If you follow Meedweep's logic, then your approach is likewise laughable. For example, by your logic, atomic theory before atoms were experimentally observed, are "fiction". That's just not how science works. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    This boils down to a classic case of ignorance, on your part, at best. Your ignorance of things like AGI research, does not suddenly warrant that AGI is fiction for eg.

    arakish's picture
    Another reason why I say

    Another reason why I say Simulated Intelligence over Artificial Intelligence.

    Where would a machine get consciousness?

    rmfr

    Avant Brown's picture
    Another reason why I say

    Another reason why I say Simulated Intelligence over Artificial Intelligence.

    Where would a machine get consciousness?

    rmfr

  • In particular, perhaps you should check out Wikipedia/Artificial General Intelligence/simulation Or Wikipedia//brain simulation
  • .

  • This line from the first Wikipedia link may interest you:

    "The computer runs a simulation model so faithful to the original that it will behave in essentially the same way as the original brain, or for all practical purposes, indistinguishably".

  • I don't think the word simulation carries the weight or relevance you think it carries.

    arakish's picture
    @ Avant Brown (Blue Grey

    @ Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brainless)

    As said, huge difference between "simulated" and "simulation."

    Go back to school yungun and quit skipping so many classes.

    rmfr

    Avant Brown's picture
    I think it's quite clear by

    @ Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brainless)

    As said, huge difference between "simulated" and "simulation."

    Go back to school yungun and quit skipping so many classes.

    rmfr

    I think it's quite clear by now, that you've held on to the misconception that simulations couldn't be highly representative of some original item. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

    David Killens's picture
    For someone claiming to be

    For someone claiming to be working on his thesis, he is spending too much time in this forum activity.

    When I was learning in college I didn't take time to pause and fart.

    Meepwned's picture
    Fiction does not mean false.

    Fiction does not mean false. I provided the definition I am using. Fiction is stories or ideas that are imagined. At the point of them not being proven possible, they are fiction. Once they are, they become nonfiction.

    I am in no way saying true AI is an impossibility, just that nobody has demonstrated a self aware AI. Nobody has demonstrated it is possible. As of right now, it is merely educated guesses, speculation. Right now it falls within the realm of fiction.

    I'm willing to be shown wrong. However, you have to bring substance. Show that self aware AI is possible. Show that we have dipped into AI that truly make their own decisions. Show me that AI can do ANYTHING that they are not programmed to do.

    I simply do not believe your claims. The burden of proof is on you.

    Edited for grammar.

    Avant Brown's picture
    Fiction does not mean false.

    Fiction does not mean false. I provided the definition I am using. Fiction is stories or ideas that are imagined. At the point of them not being proven possible, they are fiction. Once they are, they become nonfiction.

    I am in no way saying true AI is an impossibility, just that nobody has demonstrated a self aware AI. Nobody has demonstrated it is possible. As of right now, it is merely educated guesses, speculation. Right now it falls within the realm of fiction.

    I'm willing to be shown wrong. However, you have to bring substance. Show that self aware AI is possible. Show that we have dipped into AI that truly make their own decisions. Show me that AI can do ANYTHING that they are not programmed to do.

    I simply do not believe your claims. The burden of proof is on you.

    Edited for grammar.

    What do you think of the field of Artificial General Intelligence?

    Was the atom in atomic theory fiction before being experimentally observed?

  • This simply boils down to your ignorance. You lack knowledge of the existence of fields such as AGI, and so you presume it is fiction. Now I don't know if self-awareness is a requirement of general artificial intelligence, but this is a very real field, that is predicted to equal or outperform humans in many cognitive tasks given the likely success of the field's replication of general intelligence artificially.
  • Right now ai [or brain inspired Artificial narrow intelligence] outperforms or equals humans in individual cognitive or thinking tasks, but by roughly 2029, AGI will likely happen, and that will be equal at many many cognitive tasks, and not merely individual cognitive tasks.
  • xenoview's picture
    I watched the video from the

    I watched the video from the OP. It is all subjective, not objective.
    I will have to apply xenoview's razor to the OP.

    Xenoview's razor
    Objective claims requires objective evidence

    Avant Brown's picture
    I watched the video from the

    I watched the video from the OP. It is all subjective, not objective.
    I will have to apply xenoview's razor to the OP.

    Xenoview's razor
    Objective claims requires objective evidence

  • Notably, the hypothesis regarding replicating universes is scientific speculation [occurring on scientific evidence or theory, such as cosmological natural selection in physics].
  • The other hypothesis mostly regards AGI, and principles in entropy. All the components constitute quite objective principles.
  • -----------

  • Perhaps it would be optimal if you could explain why you feel the scientific principles used in the OP are supposedly "only subjective"? Could you summarize your understanding of each hypothesis as best as you understand? I wish to evaluate whether you've actually read/understand the hypotheses. ( ͡Ϙ ͜ʖ ͡o)( ͡Ϙ ͜ʖ ͡o)
  • Cognostic's picture
    re: Avant BrowN

    re: Avant BrowN
    Is is not becoming obvious that ole Brown can not stay on a single topic.

    Pages

    Donating = Loving

    Heart Icon

    Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

    Or make a one-time donation in any amount.