Donating = Loving
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.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
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.
Donating = Loving
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
1.) In fact, in my hypothesis, I underline that AGI/ASI need not be constrained to human intelligence, and thereafter humans may need not exist when AGI/ASI arrives.
2.) I also underlined that extinction, is observed to have important roles in science!
3.) Reference: The role of extinction in evolution
Thank you for unknowingly making my point, If AGI or ASI does not require human exsistance, then our purpose is to die.
Well, for what it's worth, my immediate purpose is to finish my beer before signing off, and then go get a shower and settle in for the evening. Beyond that, I plan to love my wife and treat her like a queen for as long as I am allowed in the finite amount of time I have left in this world. I consider myself fortunate that my life up to this point has been filled with a wide variety of experiences in various locations around the world. And if anything I may have done during that time has in some way contributed positively to anyone else in any way, then so much the better as far as I am concerned. What may or may not happen a few thousand or a few million years from now is about as comprehensible and concerning to me as anything that may have happened a few million years ago before mankind ever walked the earth. All I know for sure is that I have here and now, and my personal purpose is to do my best to live the rest of my days as happy as possible. Sure as hell not gonna waste it on needless worry about what some imaginary being in the sky may or may not want for/from me. I like what Randomhero said, because it is so true: "From the moment we are born {death} is at the end of every person's path." That is not doom and gloom (in my opinion). That is just being honest. Enjoy the ride while you can, folks.
Thank you Tin Man, I've always thought this unfortunately... everything that lives eventually dies, simple as that.
So if we want to talk as a species I would have to say death is our soul purpose, however that does not mean we cannot have individual purpose that we put upon ourselves.
In which I case I completely agree with your sentiments sir, in that I have personal purpose to care for family and so on.
1.) Humanity is not necessarily essential to my hypothesis. If you read my hypothesis, you would see a discussion regarding entropy maximization and intelligence. The hypothesis underlines that as intelligence increases, entropy maximization also increases. (This means human flesh is reasonably not required, and this also indicates that whatever evolved to posses general intelligence, or other advanced forms of intelligence, would still apply in the hypothesis.)
Pertinently, this intelligence progression is reasonably not limited to any one place in the cosmos (I.e. given the laws of physics, intelligence is feasible not only on earth!).
In fact, the whole point of artificial intelligence research, is the reasonable property that general intelligence is substrate independent, and thereafter not limited to humans!
2.) My hypothesis occurs on modern science as it exists today. Science strives to be objective, and I detect this point is what you constantly miss. For example, the computer upon which you type, is as a result of objective processes, i.e. science.
3.) The link was quite necessary, and ignoring the link likely lead to your erroneous conclusions.
4.) Contrarily, principles in evolution are not "false", as you claim; and even if our sun was to expire, prior to that point, there would have still been principles in evolution.
In fact, science doesn't suddenly disappear, due to hypotheses of the universe's or sun's death.
Note that I didn't say that science continues after the universe's end or our star's death; instead I pointed out that regardless of those potential outcomes, science applies today, and shall likely apply for quite a long while. Notably, what my hypothesis may reasonably underline, is yet another scientific principle, which may persist for a quite a long time whether or not our cosmos or our species comes to end.
1.) Contrarily, you referred to death above, and death/extinction *may* have its purpose.
2.) However, human existence is life, and that reasonably has a purpose too, as I underlined in my hypothesis. (i.e. We can't make agi while being extinct!)
3.) Crucially, my hypothesis doesn't say that our death is required for AGI/ASI to emerge or persist.
To your first point... And no one will ever know, all we can state as a fact is that death is the end of the road for all living things... And I would refuse to use a type of arguement similar to the 'god of the gaps' point, where we slide in any old assumptions to make up for an area where we lack knowledge.
To the second point... Well I'm going to have to side with LucyA in her OP in that this is all very subjective, we could spend all day debating what the purpose of humans or life in general is.
But if we was an independent intelligence not from earth and looked upon us through a neutral looking glass, we would see that the one absolute fact is that everything that lives, MUST die.
God I sound grim, starting to sound like a bloody Dalek! Lol
And finally... one minute your saying humanity isn't necessary and now your saying death isn't required?!
1. I don't detect the relevance of your first point.
2. Well, like LucyA, you'd be wrong. LucyA appears to feel that evolutionary principle is "subjective" simply because it may not apply on other planets. This is false, because evolutionary principle need not describe alien life, to objectively describe earthly stuff. Another example is that the computer upon which you type is a result of objective processes, i.e. science.
As for my hypothesis, it is reasonably yet another thing that may describe a principle in evolution. (And it aims to be objective, i.e. independent of personal feelings, and rather consistent with modern science.)
3.) You appear to conflate humanity's potential non-requirement to exist after AGI/ASI 's arrival or potential human extinction, with some scientifically unfounded idea that the creation of AGI/ASI must require human extinction.
What I mentioned, was that indeed, human extinction may occur, and that other extinctions have been observed to have importance. (So, I didn't say our extinction must possess an important role wrt entropy maximization and intelligence, but that it may, although I don't detect particularly what such my be. )
Crucially, the emergence of AGI/ASI may not require our extinction.
4.) I didn't merely mention that humanity was not necessary. I mentioned that humanity was not necessarily essential in my hypothesis, i.e. my hypothesis could possibly expand to describe scenarios not limited to our planet, given that the entropy maximization methods are reasonably generalizable. (i.e. laws of physics reasonably permits intelligence/entropy maximization in places other than earth in the universe.)
1 - why am i surprised
2 - strawman
3 - it's not a potential to not exists, it's a fact.
4 - that's did not answer the question I made regarding how one moment you claim humanity isn't necessary for AI (which it is) and the next you say it may not be necessary, which again makes the point that human purpose is simply to eventually die.
All life dies, there is no escaping it.
Here ya go, Random. This should cheer you up. *BIG GRIN*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UbGtjnluyY
Nutty as a fruit cake.
Fruit cake with a gargantuan side order of word salad, served with a vintage bottle of absolute bollocks...
?
Once again, I think most atheists 'and' theists, are stretching too far for an answer to this.
Its quite simple, "We have no purpose". To have purpose, we would have had to been created, and I think most of us don't believe that, in the first place. So what is wrong with not having a purpose, anyway ?
i really don't know fishy..try asking the theist..maybe they'll give their reason why they need purpose in life..try asking Breezy or FIG..
good luck with that man...!!!
1.) On the contrary, the word purpose may mean principle, and there are many principles in science.
2.) Reference, Wikipedia/Laws of Science: "The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles..."
3.) People tend to enter discussion not recalling or knowing that purpose may mean principle. They then tend to criticize their feeling about what the word purpose means, instead of what it is actually typically defined to mean, as you demonstrated above!
Your views are not testable.
"Purpose" means exactly what the user intends it to mean. Popular usage includes ideal goals (as in the purpose of life), intended usage (as in the purpose of a broom), and the suitability of a structure for certain ends (as in evolutionary "purpose"). There is no "correct" definition since a definition is not a statement referencing something in the real world or even the abstract world. It is merely a declaration as to what an individual or group means by the usage of that word.
Nice to see you back, greensnake.
Glad to drop by the old neighborhood and see some of the pillars still there!
1.) It appears you failed to understand my prior comments.
2.) I did not say that humans aren't necessary, I said that humans aren't necessarily essential to my hypothesis, as it may be expanded to account for scenarios that don't necessarily include humans. (And I clearly explained that the laws of physics permits similar situations (That don't necessarily include humans) in places other than earth!)
3.) Given that humans exist on earth, my hypothesis concerns humans.
4.) Also my hypothesis also did not say that AGI/ASI requires human extinction to emerge/persist!
5.) Is English your first language?
1. It appears you still think entropy maximization may only occur in singular things. It's a common misconception, so your confusion is anticipated.
2.) Reference: "We have long known that the world’s total entropy
is supposed to increase, yet here we have a more precise statement:
the more statistically irreversible a spontaneous process is (that is, the more likely you are to go from X to Xʹ than the reverse, under a given set of arbitrary non-equilibrium driving conditions), the greater the minimum amount of total entropy increase required", by Jeremy England. (as cited in my hypothesis.)
3.) So, there is a gradation of maximization above; when humans are reasonably maximizing entropy, this doesn't mean humans generate the most entropy. This simply means humans are merely one way to reasonably maximize entropy (as described above), and AGI/ASI shall reasonably be even larger ways. As things get more intelligent, they reasonably maximize entropy, although this does not mean they generate the most entropy overall. (The word "maximization" tends to generate the misconception you demonstrated.)
More word salad. Now the OP wants to tell us that maximization doesn't mean maximization.
1.) Science is not word salad; as Jeremy England underlines, things may increase the minimum amount of entropy in transition from one macrostate to the next in system space.
2.) Pertinently, this maximisation is not only performed by one thing in nature, so, that one thing maximises its entropy, doesn't suddenly warrant that that thing produces the most entropy overall. (Emphasis there on maximising **its** entropy, as explained clearly in science!)
3.) Whether or not you admit the above science to be valid is irrelevant; science doesn't suddenly become "word salad" just because you fail to accept or understand some area in science!
4.) Reference-B: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_maximization
My purpose in life is to see and learn and experience and live and love as much as I can before it's too late!
@Lucy
I've been thinking about your OP since I first read it. My first thought was hallelujah! Yes! I'm a speck on a speck in a smudge of gas, and my decisions CANNOT affect The Universe. Hell, it doesn't even know I exist :-D
It should have been a scary thought. It should have been deeply unpleasant. It should have made me shake my fist at the sky and shout " You're wrong, Universe! I AM IMPORTANT!!" But instead it made me giggle. Maybe it was your glorious icon, Lucy, reminding me of all I'm part of. Maybe it was the earthworm. I realised I was on the same level as the earthworm I was watching crawl into my plant pot and I felt at one with it. I like earthworms. They're cool and dead useful. We'd all be worse off without earthworms. We'd miss them. It would be
https://youtu.be/94bdMSCdw20
without the earthworms.
So here I am, born to die an earthworm's companion. It brings its plate to the party and I bring mine.
Only a delusional moron would assign purpose to humanity,. It is completely foolish to do so. Life exists to perpetuate life. Life feeds on life. Life exists because of life. You are alive to serve other life forms that will feed on you, be fed upon, and eventually lead to more life. That's it. Nothing more. Those are the FACTS. The real question, as far as meaning goes, is this, "Now that you have life, what will you do to give it meaning." If the meaning of your life is to sit about and ask questions like "What is the meaning of life." Then that is your life's meaning. You give meaning to your life and to the world around you., It does not work the other way around.
Exactly! It is we who must supply the meaning to our lives and our world. We won't find it in the impersonal laws of nature, the sterility of logic, or in the vast reaches of the universe stretched over time and space--in all likelihood doomed to ruin. Certainly, we won't find it in man-made gods which are only a mirror reflecting our own understanding born of more primitive times.
Those religious folks who think they have a leg up on us atheists, because they deem finite lives to be meaningless, have failed to ask a basic question. Is an infinite life, based on some kind of meaningful continuation of our self in a heavenly body, a good thing? It seems to me that the great core of meaning we find in our lives is a result of our finite existence. Sure, I wouldn't mind tacking on another 100 years if it wasn't at the start of a Trump dynasty, but sooner or later it seems that all meaning would fade away. Such a life might well be the most meaningless existence conceivable--another version of hell! One's very concept of self might dissolve as one experienced every possible adventure! If some being had the power to offer me eternal life, even under luxurious conditions, I'd really be scared silly about accepting it.
1. What you fail to see, is that purpose may mean principle, and there are many principles in science, such as principles in evolution, and science seeks to be objective.
2. Reference-A: Purpose/principle synonym.
3. Reference-B, Wikipedia Laws Of Science: The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles...."
4. This means what I underlined in my hypothesis, is reasonably yet another principle in science, i.e. one that may describe the objective/goal of intelligence, given evidence.
5. Next time you enter discourse, recall that it is key to look up definition of the word in question, as words often have larger scopes that we may recall.
- Having read your hypothesis and the linked paper I would say that the paper just shows some correlation.
I cannot see where they may claim a causal link in any way, in fact it actually seems to just deal with the organisation of the brain,
its structure and also function.
From there it appear that you have made an unsubstantiated leap to 'purpose' without any predictions, testing or recorded data for analysis, or even the intention to eventually do so.
In fact it appears to be just a cherry picking of quotes from various papers to support your presupposition.
I would also ask, Please define what you mean by 'purpose' and what type of entropy you are talking about?
But interesting nevertheless.
Pages