Scientific purpose of human species, may be to replicate universes

149 posts / 0 new
Last post
Blue Grey Brain's picture
Not challenging your reply. I

Not challenging your reply. I'm saying that Purpose is entirely subjective.

  1. The thing is, purpose is not solely within the realm of religion/subjectivity; religion does not have monopoly on purpose nor does purpose strictly concern subjective matters.
  2. In fact, the only valid types of purposes, are science/atheism related ones, namely concerning things such as teleonomy.
  3. Crucially, it seems you didn't know of teleonomy before you entered this conversation, and so you're perhaps confusing the OP with the teleological argument or some argument that seeks to be subjective, instead of responding to teleonomy which the OP actually concerns.
TheBlindWatchmaker's picture
I would argue that human

I would argue that human existence will always be limited to we are born to breed and die.
As unwelcoming and unwanted as this may be, it is ultimately the absolute truth of all life on this planet.

Meepwned's picture
@Avant Brown Why, in most of

@Avant Brown Why, in most of your posts, do you insinuate that we are ignorant on teleonomy? Finding a purpose is a meaningful endeavor. Many of us have and still are looking for a purpose.

However, purpose is always subjective. It is always a personal goal. You can achieve objective results, like creating a new universe, but wanting that to happen is a personal thing. Be careful not to confuse purpose with destiny.

I personally, do not see creating a new universe as a good goal, for me. Even with our staggering rate of development, I will most likely die before it comes to fruition and I do not have a way to measure the progress made.

Now, I do not see sufficient advancement into the self awareness of AI for me to think of AGI as anything but fiction. I would be the first to admit that we don't fully understand intelligence and self awareness, but, with the things we do know, we can measure some of the progress.

Blue Grey Brain's picture
@Avant Brown Why, in most of

@Avant Brown Why, in most of your posts, do you insinuate that we are ignorant on teleonomy? Finding a purpose is a meaningful endeavor. Many of us have and still are looking for a purpose.

However, purpose is always subjective. It is always a personal goal. You can achieve objective results, like creating a new universe, but wanting that to happen is a personal thing. Be careful not to confuse purpose with destiny.

I personally, do not see creating a new universe as a good goal, for me. Even with our staggering rate of development, I will most likely die before it comes to fruition and I do not have a way to measure the progress made.

Now, I do not see sufficient advancement into the self awareness of AI for me to think of AGI as anything but fiction. I would be the first to admit that we don't fully understand intelligence and self awareness, but, with the things we do know, we can measure some of the progress.

  • Science seeks to be an objective process, even when things like general relativity confers subjective reference frames, or varying reference frames. What the OP concerns, is something that seeks to encompass an objective framework, under which humans necessarily do things with individual reference frames, as far as general relativity goes.
  • However, the above must not be confused for the typical "subjective find your own purpose concept", which tends to ignore scientific endeavour, i.e. most purpose concerns non-scientific worship of deities, as reflected in the billions of religious people that reside on this planet. (The key difference here is that the traditional purpose seeks to be subjective, while the OP concerns models of purpose that seek to be objective).
  • You may find AGI to be fiction, but the laws of physics permits AGI; and some of the smartest people doing Ai predict it to likely occur in 5 to 10 years.
  • Nyarlathotep's picture
    Avant Brown - Persons tend to

    Avant Brown - Persons tend to underestimate the rate of change, namely the exponential rate of change of technology.

    Really? What is its doubling time?

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    Nyarlathotep - What is its

    Nyarlathotep - What is its doubling time?

    Should I assume we won't be getting an answer to this question?

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    Should I assume we won't be

    Should I assume we won't be getting an answer to this question?

    See another quote of mine to you:

    Blue Grey Brain's words:

    I think it would benefit both of us in this conversation, if you took a look at "Hyper Moore's Law" and "The laws of accelerating returns".

    Btw, the doubling I'm referring to relates to exponential change. Linear change can get you an increment of 1 every step, whereas exponential change gets you powers in doubling terms, or ^2.

    You may also want to take a look at Wikipedia/Doubling time.

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown
    Let me be more clear: you said the function is an exponential. I'm just asking for that function. Thanks.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown
    Let me be more clear: you said the function is an exponential. I'm just asking for that function. Thanks.

    Mathematical functions are things that may transform some input into some output. Take your pick of a function that looks like it's generating exponential returns. I don't recall mentioning any one particular function.

    In case of additional questions: After all, everything is probably numbers. Even if everything isn't numbers, you take some input, pass those to some other numbers that represent some junction or function, then you get some other numbers that in sequence, seem exponential in their distribution.

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    Avant Brown - I don't recall

    Avant Brown - Take your pick of a function that looks like it's generating exponential returns. I don't recall mentioning any one particular function.

    Right; which is why I keep asking for it. There is an infinite number of them which makes it hard for me to guess it. Could you please just tell us?

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown

    Put yourself in my shoes. Someone tells you the rate of change of something is an exponential, but then can't/won't tell you what that exponential is. What conclusion do you think I should come to given that situation?

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown

    Put yourself in my shoes. Someone tells you the rate of change of something is an exponential, but then can't/won't tell you what that exponential is. What conclusion do you think I should come to given that situation?

    I would draw the conclusion that you ignored what I specified the exponential to be.

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    Avant Brown - I would draw

    Avant Brown - I would draw the conclusion that you ignored what I specified the exponential to be.

    We'll I'm sorry, I guess I missed your answer; sometimes these forums are hard to keep up with. Could you please just tell me the function again?

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    We'll I'm sorry, I guess I

    We'll I'm sorry, I guess I missed your answer; sometimes these forums are hard to keep up with. Could you please just tell me the function again?

    The computer you use now, is an excellent example of a product of exponential change, or rather, computer evolution can be drawn such that an exponential distribution occurs.

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown

    If you don't know the exponential, just tells us you don't know it. If you do know it, just tell us. Why are we still beating around this bush?

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown

    If you don't know the exponential, just tells us you don't know it. If you do know it, just tell us. Why are we still beating around this bush?

    I think it best if you see the Law of accelerating returns resource, that was long pointed out to you.

    See also this graph from the same source.

    arakish's picture
    He does not know. He cannot

    He does not know. He cannot know. That is why he is running around in circles. Too cowardly to admit that he does not know.

    rmfr

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    arakish - He does not know.

    arakish - He does not know.

    Yeah, I guess not. You'd think someone who does this for a living would know; and you'd hope anyone preaching this new religion would know.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    He does not know. He cannot

    He does not know. He cannot know. That is why he is running around in circles. Too cowardly to admit that he does not know.

    rmfr

    I provided a resource in my earlier reply. It is up to the reader to contact the source.

    Then again, some of the responders here tend to not fancy citations, so it's no surprise if citations I provide elude their will power to simply visit said sources.

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown

    Yeah, I read what you linked. It didn't provide the function either. So I'm back to square one.

    It should only take a few seconds for you to give us the answer. What is the problem?

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    @Avant Brown

    @Avant Brown

    Yeah, I read what you linked. It didn't provide the function either. So I'm back to square one.

    It should only take a few seconds for you to give us the answer. What is the problem?

    Could you precisely underline what function you require, in relation to the OP?

    arakish's picture
    He has already told you. Go

    He has already told you. Go back and re-read. By the way, I read all your links and all of it is crap.

    rmfr

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    He has already told you. Go

    He has already told you. Go back and re-read. By the way, I read all your links and all of it is crap.

    rmfr

    Your responses are as precise as a 1 year old's on complicated matters. Care to explain yourself a bit better?

    arakish's picture
    He has already told you. Go

    He has already told you. Go back and re-read. By the way, I read all your links and all of it is crap.

    You know UNM has some of the best ESL classes...

    rmfr

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    Avant Brown - Could you

    Avant Brown - Could you precisely underline what function you require, in relation to the OP?

    Avant Brown - Persons tend to underestimate the rate of change, namely the exponential rate of change of technology.

    The function that describes this "rate of change of technology"; or something more or less like that. For example: if i started saving $100 a week, starting from nothing we could express that savings as: S(t) = $100(t)/(week)| S is savings (in dollars), t is time (in weeks). Or the rate of change of savings as: ΔS/Δt = $100/week.

    I'm skeptical that the function (the technology one) is an exponential. The simplest way to dispel this doubt is to just give us the function, IMO.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    The function that describes

    The function that describes this "rate of change of technology"; or something more or less like that. For example: if i started saving $100 a week, starting from nothing we could express that savings as: S(t) = $100(t)/(week)| S is savings (in dollars), t is time (in weeks). Or the rate of change of savings as: ΔS/Δt = $100/week.

    I'm skeptical that the function (the technology one) is an exponential. The simplest way to dispel this doubt is to just give us the function, IMO.

    As I had long predicted of your motives, and as I had long pointed out based on said prediction, "your device" is a concrete example of exponential returns.

    arakish's picture
    See, Nyarlathotep? He is so

    See, Nyarlathotep? He is so mentally stunted he does not understand English.

    Again, UNM has some wonderful ESL classes...

    rmfr

    Nyarlathotep's picture
    Avant Brown - As I had long

    Avant Brown - As I had long predicted of your motives...

    My motive is straight forward, I'm skeptical of your claim. I politely asked you for the function several times and I'd still like to see it.

    If you are unwilling to provide it, please tell me so, so I can stop asking.

    If you don't know it, please tell me so, so I can stop asking.

    Cognostic's picture
    Nyarlathotep: Oh stop

    Nyarlathotep: Oh stop trying to be logical. Just quote some theory and then draw your own inane conclusions while pointing to it as evidence for your claim even though it says nothing at all about the claim you are making and may even contradict the claim you are making. As long as the theory looks complected you will sound intelligent and people will think you are smart and you can pretend no one actually understands you because you obviously know the right way to interpret all the data no matter what anyone else says.

    Blue Grey Brain's picture
    Nyarlathotep: Oh stop trying

    Nyarlathotep: Oh stop trying to be logical. Just quote some theory and then draw your own inane conclusions while pointing to it as evidence for your claim even though it says nothing at all about the claim you are making and may even contradict the claim you are making. As long as the theory looks complected you will sound intelligent and people will think you are smart and you can pretend no one actually understands you because you obviously know the right way to interpret all the data no matter what anyone else says.

    In simpler terms, if Cognostic doesn't wish to understand it, it is not worth understanding or isn't understandable?

    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.