# Scientific purpose of human species, may be to replicate universes

154 posts / 0 new

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

Well, I'll be damned. It still ain't got it. AB you are becoming as useful as used tampon.

rmfr

And I watch the sarcasm sail over Avant Brown's head.

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.

I already gave a sufficient answer in an earlier response on page 2, as underlined below:

Blue Grey Brain's words:
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.

You can take a look at accelerating returns, and plot the data yourself, if you don't like the plots there. What you seem to be looking for is how some data pertaining to evolving tech is organized, such that it resembles an exponential distribution. (If you want to know what distribution means, you can google that as well.)

@ Avant Brown

since you cannot figure out what Nyarlathotep is talking, he means a "function" like f(x) = x + 1. Although I am giving very simple function, that is an example of what he has been asking you about when he says the "function for the exponential growth" for your deity.

rmfr

arakish - ...[Nyarlathotep] means a "function" like f(x) = x + 1.

Exactly.

When a STEM PhD candidate tells me something pretty important to their field is exponential; I don't think it is unreasonable to ask them what that exponential is.

Am I being unreasonable?

@Avant Brown
Like I said in my first post, it really comes down to how you define "AI"

You could potentially say the first sliding rule, or abacus is "AI" Or you could say AI is human like intelligence but made artificially.
Or somewhere inbetween.

If you take the 2nd option the more extreme end of "human like ai or greater" the experts in the field will tell you: we are nowhere near close. Like I said in my longish post, the latest top of the line supercomputer running self learning, machine learning broad artificial intelligence struggles to operate even at an insect's brain's level.

So far computers are just really fancy calculators. Crunching binary math at blazing speeds, with all kinds of hardware and software tricks that speeds up the more complex calculations, "short cuts" may be the best way to describe it.

The human brain however, is very very different then even the most advanced computer today. At minimum advanced quantum processors that can operate billions of instructions every cycle is needed (currently we have quantum processors that can only do 2-8 qubits and they have not yet left the lab. (good thing too, our cyber security is not anywhere near ready for what quantum processors represent - making all encryption techniques worthless-)

Also another large roadblock. The number of possible connections in a human brain. Far exceeds all the connections of every computer, processor, switch, router, network, ever made in the entire world combined. Trying to replicate a human brain is currently beyond our reach.

Worse still, when it comes to moore's law, it has reached mostly a dead end. We are at 7nm for traditional silicon processors, and it was an incredible effort to get there from just 9-11 n/m processors (billions of dollars!.) You may have noticed, a decent processor from 5 years ago is probably only 10-20 percent slower than a comparable (in price) decent desktop processor of today. So even if there was hope one day our compute capabilities on silicon could begin to rival the human's brain, that hope is gone now, we have reached a "dead end" when it comes to creating more powerful processors. Now we are just lowering power requirements, refining them and of course doubling , quadrupling etc the core counts.

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

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

2. Moore's law may indeed be seen as dead, but it has been replaced with a better law, or law which indicates computing power is doubling even faster than Moore's law indicated. Enter "Hyper Moore's Law."

---------------------
3. It's not merely about speed. To play the game of "Go" well, you need:

a. Computer size of the universe to brute force search through all Go game states. (The number of possible moves in "Go", surpasses the number of atoms in the known universe!)

b. ...or you need human like intuition; i.e. humans have played the game of "Go" well for millennia.

c. Obviously, alpha go Ai, now the world champion, is not a computer the size of the universe, so alpha go Ai, clearly has human like intuition going on.
---------------------

Most of your arguments demonstrably occur on ignorance.

First I want to say this topic is fascinating to me and I like to read and learn all I can on it. I am by no means an expert at this stuff and I could very easily get something wrong.

1. That is cool, did not know they were up to 2048. They must of made some major advances to stabilizing the qubit to make 2048 qubit possible, or perhaps they went more of the "brute force" route, where many, perhaps most of them spit out bad data, but the numbers are high enough to error correct. I unfortunately did not have time to read the article in its entirety I hope to do so tomorrow. If 2048 qubit every went mass scale, we would all have to update our encryption methods away from prime integers method. Which could end up requiring a lot more overhead for your non quantum computers to remain secure. As I do work in cyber security now, that is a big deal in my line of work.

2. Agreed, but if we are just changing definitions and setting new bars we are not really talking about moore's law anymore. My base point that actual targeted useful improvement by reducing transistor size to realize gains in space, heat issues etc is pretty much at an end. We can however modify, add to, and run stuff in parallel, like what GPU's are good at.

Take Nvidia's latest 20XX series of graphics cards released last summer. The 2080 (retails for at best 750 bucks (and this is months after launch!) but is can only play the latest games maybe 10-20 percent faster than the 1080 that was launched 2.5 years ago for ~\$550. The price to performance ratio for all games has actually gone down! The only real gains in power is for games that utilize ray tracing to a great degree. Basically they just added on more hardware, more transistors to do new things, not a whole lot of "improving upon" what it could do before w/o throwing more memory at it. Now at least part of it is Nvidia cashing in on the cryptocurrency craze which allows them to fatten their profit margins, but overall even for nvidia the "inventor of Hyper moore's law" is having real trouble seeing advancement at a practical usable level. It is a bit like a car manufacture saying: This car is much faster and better then our last model, we added turbo instead of doubling horsepower, and that is fine, but the car also cost a signficant amount more, weighs more etc with the inclusion of turbo.

3. Fully agree with you here. It is pretty cool reading about how they taught the computer how to play GO well enough to beat the top GO players in the world, by having it play many thousands of games and learning based on the outcome of them. Instead of trying to brute force calculate every possible move, as the developers were well aware that the possibilities quickly ballooned to unmanageable numbers even with with a computer that had performance measured in tera flops.

3C. Disagree with you here. That is quite the unevidenced leap, there are many many other possibilities here other then "human intuition going on." We humans still do not even fully understand human intuition.

Most of your arguments demonstrably occur on ignorance.

I never claimed to be an expert and stated these were my own opinions I even learned some new stuff, like the dwave simulation that happened in late august from your post. But how sure are you that there is no gaps in your knowledge? Enough to be certain "most of my arguments demonstrably occur on ignorance?"

As LogicFLW hinted earlier: only someone who has never "gotten their hands dirty" in a computer could think that doubling it's cores, will double its output.

As LogicFLW hinted earlier: only someone who has never "gotten their hands dirty" in a computer could think that doubling it's cores, will double its output.

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.

Avant Brown: "whereas exponential change gets you powers in doubling terms, or ^2."

Well, you just proved you are NOT a STEM PhD candidate. Doubling (×2) is NOT the same as squared (^2).

rmfr

Avant Brown,

"Scientific purpose of human species, may be to replicate universes"

Why has it taken over 13 Billion years for man to even realize what an universe might be? Just 100 years ago people thought that the stars in the night sky was the entire universe. Even today some people don't know how to boil water so the idea that the purpose of humans is to replicate universes seems to be farfetched.

Heck, we have barely begun to explore our universe, and to travel through it is a very big ask.

And if course, if future versions of mankind could actually do it, we now ask the question .. why would they?

If a future race learned enough to perform this task, no doubt they have also learned other things, and may be able to do even more impressive things.

I've read your article on hyper Moore's law and it says that GPUs are advancing in capability but CPUs are not. It also says new types of GPUs are being developed. Also, it was speculation by a CEO, who has investors to please. They always promise things that may or may not actually happen.

Yes, technology, overall, will probably exponentially increase. However, self aware AI might not be possible and I see no advancements in that specific area. So far, AI only do what they are programmed to do. Yes, they can learn, because they are programmed to. We have no examples of AI doing things outside of their programming.

I've read your article on hyper Moore's law and it says that GPUs are advancing in capability but CPUs are not. It also says new types of GPUs are being developed. Also, it was speculation by a CEO, who has investors to please. They always promise things that may or may not actually happen.

Yes, technology, overall, will probably exponentially increase. However, self aware AI might not be possible and I see no advancements in that specific area. So far, AI only do what they are programmed to do. Yes, they can learn, because they are programmed to. We have no examples of AI doing things outside of their programming.

It looks like you don't know that machine learning is evolving exponentially, along with those GPUs.

Now there are TPUs too, btw, which are even better than the fast evolving GPUs.

• While Nvidia does have investors to convince, Nvidia also powers a lot of machine learning stuff. Wanting to please investors is not automatically coupled with being non fast evolving or non-productive, and Nvidia has demonstrably delivered fast evolving computing solutions.
• Yes, CPUs aren't advancing as well as GPUs in particular ways [the whole point of the article was Moore's law transitioning into GPU like evolution], this doesn't change that exponential changes are underway.
• I reiterate. The best they will probably ever do with computers is to create a sophisticated SI (Simulated Intelligence). Never a true AI.

rmfr

I reiterate. The best they will probably ever do with computers is to create a sophisticated SI (Simulated Intelligence). Never a true AI.

rmfr

What do you understand by the word simulation?

It seems you feel your use of the word simulation somehow inhibits the creation of human level surpassing artificial intelligence.

• 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, or at least show you that your use of the word simulation doesn't actually carry the weight you seem to think it does hereafter:

"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".

• Simulated, NOT simulation. Completely different.

rmfr

Simulated, NOT simulation. Completely different.

rmfr

I think you need to revisit my prior comment.

The words simulated and simulation are used interchangeably on the Wikipedia/brain simulation and Artificial General Intelligence page.

There's a common misconception about the words, which you seem to be servicing throughout your responses.

@ Avant Brown

"There's a common misconception about the words, which you seem to be servicing throughout your responses."

simulated = to create a simulation, likeness, or model of.

simulation = the act or process of pretending

No misconception.

rmfr

The words simulated and simulation are used interchangeably on the Wikipedia/brain simulation and Artificial General Intelligence page.

What does the quote below mean to you? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Blue grey brain's words:
The words simulated and simulation are used interchangeably on the Wikipedia/brain simulation and Artificial General Intelligence page.

@ Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brainless)

It means that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article does not know difference between "simulated" and "simulation." And evidently neither do you.

rmfr

@ Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brainless)

It means that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article does not know difference between "simulated" and "simulation." And evidently neither do you.

rmfr

Or could it mean that for quite a long while you've held on to the misconception that simulations couldn't be highly representative of some original item? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I don't expect myself to be omniscient of any topic at all, and I think you should remember that you are liable to be holding on to misconceptions. The key is to be willing to update your beliefs, especially when you're clearly demonstrated to be wrong, as is the case as is visible on "Wikipedia/Artificial General Intelligence", and "Wikipedia/Brain Simulation".

@ Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brainless)

BGBrainless: "Or could it mean that for quite a long while you've held on to the misconception that simulations couldn't be highly representative of some original item?"

Well, now I know English ain't your first language. For the second time, "No misconception."

• simulatedto create a simulation, likeness, or model of.
• simulationthe act or process of pretending.

Now if I were to stick the definition for simulation into the definition for simulated, we get.

• simulatedto create an act or process of pretending, likeness, or model of.

I do know a university near me that has some of the best ESL classes...

BGBrainless: "I don't expect myself to be omniscient of any topic at all"

Nor do I. However, it seems I have infinitely more knowledge I can tap straight out of my brain than you do by copying and pasting from Wikipedia. Do you see me doing such to fill in my arguments? I was studying computers, computer science, and programming probably decades before you itched your daddy's loins. Even though I am a volcanologist, I still have to know computer programming. I am in the supporting role of field scientist and analyst. I love this role because I do not have to sit on my ass everyday I am at work. Sometimes, if I am needed for such, I get to drive and hike all over Yellowstone. Where are you at? Your mama's basement? Most often, if I ain't needed out in the field, I am at home on a secured server performing analyses for those guys who do write the journal papers. Of course, my name gets included, but I never require it. And in doing those analyses, I am using many different proprietary software that sometimes I actually have to write a new program to perform the analysis.

For the last time, THERE SHALL NEVER, EVER, BE ANY FORM OF TRUE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. The best hoped for shall be a SIMULATED intelligence. If in doubt, see the definitions for "simulated" above.

BGBrainless: "I think you should remember that you are liable to be holding on to misconceptions."

Again, no misconceptions. Do you even know how to understand and comprehend English? Or are you going through a translator?

• simulated &dash; to create a simulation, likeness, or model of.
• simulationthe act or process of pretending.

Now if I were to stick the definition for simulation into the definition for simulated, we get.

• simulated &dash; to create aa act or process of pretending, likeness, or model of.

I do know a university near me that has some of the best ESL classes...

BGBrainless: "The key is to be willing to update your beliefs"

My beliefs ain't got a damn thing to do with it.

BGBrainless: "especially when you're clearly demonstrated to be wrong"

Which you have yet to do.

BGBrainless: "as is the case as is visible on "Wikipedia/Artificial General Intelligence", and "Wikipedia/Brain Simulation"."

And I have already read all that shit many years ago and still read scientific journal papers on the matter. Wikipedia is NOT an academic resource. The best Wikipedia can hope for is being referential jumping point for TRUE scientific academic resources.

In all the papers I have read, ALL say the best we shall ever hope for is SIMULATED intelligence, not true artificial intelligence.

It is tiresome dealing with childish, spoiled brats. Go back to school and quit skipping so many classes. Go do some research at some true science journal paper web sites.

And finally, you are a Religiious Absolutist. Just one proselytizing for "artificial intelligence" without even understanding what you are talking about. Someone else, LostLocke (?), has pointed out that you are cloning your posts from the Atheist Forums here at Atheist Republic. That is a sign of being a Religious Absolutist. You are shot down at one forums, thus you try your proselytizing at another forums. Only to get shot down again. If I had the power, I would banish your account and banish you from these boards. Did you notice Forum Guidelines Number 1) No trolling? As far as I concerned, proselytizing is the same as trolling.

Goodbye for now, childish, spoiled brat. Come back in ten years when you have finished primary school and perhaps graduated with a Bachelor's from a university.

rmfr

@ Avant Brown (Blue Grey Brainless)

BGBrainless: "Or could it mean that for quite a long while you've held on to the misconception that simulations couldn't be highly representative of some original item?"

Well, now I know English ain't your first language. For the second time, "No misconception."

simulated — to create a simulation, likeness, or model of.
simulation — the act or process of pretending.
Now if I were to stick the definition for simulation into the definition for simulated, we get.

simulated — to create an act or process of pretending, likeness, or model of.
I do know a university near me that has some of the best ESL classes...

BGBrainless: "I don't expect myself to be omniscient of any topic at all"

Nor do I. However, it seems I have infinitely more knowledge I can tap straight out of my brain than you do by copying and pasting from Wikipedia. Do you see me doing such to fill in my arguments? I was studying computers, computer science, and programming probably decades before you itched your daddy's loins. Even though I am a volcanologist, I still have to know computer programming. I am in the supporting role of field scientist and analyst. I love this role because I do not have to sit on my ass everyday I am at work. Sometimes, if I am needed for such, I get to drive and hike all over Yellowstone. Where are you at? Your mama's basement? Most often, if I ain't needed out in the field, I am at home on a secured server performing analyses for those guys who do write the journal papers. Of course, my name gets included, but I never require it. And in doing those analyses, I am using many different proprietary software that sometimes I actually have to write a new program to perform the analysis.

For the last time, THERE SHALL NEVER, EVER, BE ANY FORM OF TRUE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. The best hoped for shall be a SIMULATED intelligence. If in doubt, see the definitions for "simulated" above.

BGBrainless: "I think you should remember that you are liable to be holding on to misconceptions."

Again, no misconceptions. Do you even know how to understand and comprehend English? Or are you going through a translator?

simulated &dash; to create a simulation, likeness, or model of.
simulation – the act or process of pretending.
Now if I were to stick the definition for simulation into the definition for simulated, we get.

simulated &dash; to create aa act or process of pretending, likeness, or model of.
I do know a university near me that has some of the best ESL classes...

BGBrainless: "The key is to be willing to update your beliefs"

My beliefs ain't got a damn thing to do with it.

BGBrainless: "especially when you're clearly demonstrated to be wrong"

Which you have yet to do.

BGBrainless: "as is the case as is visible on "Wikipedia/Artificial General Intelligence", and "Wikipedia/Brain Simulation"."

And I have already read all that shit many years ago and still read scientific journal papers on the matter. Wikipedia is NOT an academic resource. The best Wikipedia can hope for is being referential jumping point for TRUE scientific academic resources.

In all the papers I have read, ALL say the best we shall ever hope for is SIMULATED intelligence, not true artificial intelligence.

It is tiresome dealing with childish, spoiled brats. Go back to school and quit skipping so many classes. Go do some research at some true science journal paper web sites.

And finally, you are a Religiious Absolutist. Just one proselytizing for "artificial intelligence" without even understanding what you are talking about. Someone else, LostLocke (?), has pointed out that you are cloning your posts from the Atheist Forums here at Atheist Republic. That is a sign of being a Religious Absolutist. You are shot down at one forums, thus you try your proselytizing at another forums. Only to get shot down again. If I had the power, I would banish your account and banish you from these boards. Did you notice Forum Guidelines Number 1) No trolling? As far as I concerned, proselytizing is the same as trolling.

Goodbye for now, childish, spoiled brat. Come back in ten years when you have finished primary school and perhaps graduated with a Bachelor's from a university.

rmfr

1. I am now doing PhD work, in artificial intelligence, so it is possible that I know a bit more than you in this scenario.

2. You still refuse to accept that you had misconceived, that simulations couldn't in theory, capture a quite high level of detail of some source. [Wikipedia/Brain simulation, Wikipedia/Artificial General Intelligence.]

3. Now, you can update your beliefs regarding the nature of brain simulations, or continue to supply your feelings on the matter. I've come to learn through many difficult years, that facts don't care about feelings. You should probably stitch that into your being. Also, try using citations/sources in your responses. You may learn a thing or two from practicing this habit, both on these forums, and in life elsewhere.

@ Avant Brown

PhD work, huh? Yeah right. Then you should know that Wikipedia is NOT an academic resource.

rmfr

@ Avant Brown

PhD work, huh? Yeah right. Then you should know that Wikipedia is NOT an academic resource.

rmfr

Yes, that's quite right, PhD work.

This means I can sometimes trivially determine when one is expressing nonsense, as is seen in many of your responses thus far.

It is strange that you feel a resource that may be simplified, is suddenly not academic. By that measure, some silly outcomes arise, such as simplified lectures in pedagogical settings, now being "non-academic" by your imagination.

"I am now doing PhD work, in artificial intelligence, so it is possible that I know a bit more than you in this scenario."

I doubt that for many reasons. The fact that you cite Wiki as your prime reference source reeks of a lack of imagination and ability to be creative. And I cannot see anyone with your abilities as a candidate for a viable thesis.

"I am now doing PhD work, in artificial intelligence, so it is possible that I know a bit more than you in this scenario."

I doubt that for many reasons. The fact that you cite Wiki as your prime reference source reeks of a lack of imagination and ability to be creative. And I cannot see anyone with your abilities as a candidate for a viable thesis.

1. Where did I cite Wikipedia, as a primary source? I particularly mentioned, that Wikipedia is an academic source, not a primary source. [See Wikipedia/Strawman fallacy.]

2. I am the only one on the forum, that encouraged the referencing of sources, as often as possible. You should probably aim to re-evaluate the abilities you feel you have; i.e. I don't recall a single response from you, with valid sources.

3. One can be quite creative, [like the authors of the hypotheses concerning the OP] while still referencing sources to substantiate one's arguments. I too have also come to hypothesize a scientific purpose regarding the human species based on one of the hypotheses presented in the OP, although I did not cite it in the OP.

Have you ever attempted to develop that type of thought, of course, using evidence? Or are you still of the opinion that life is either purposeless, or the usual opinion that the species seeks to enable gene survival?

A human being (like all life forms) has two biological imperatives. That is to survive (food and protection) and propagate by reproduction.

A human being (like all life forms) has two biological imperatives. That is to survive (food and protection) and propagate by reproduction.

• What you note above, is reasonably the strongest, most established scientific picture we have today, although it may not be the most advanced.

For example, the hypothesis in the OP regarding AGI, takes a look at the picture you cite above, and seeks to search for additional possibilities based on evolutionary principle [as included in said picture], but also entropy as it relates to biological general intelligence, which is not explored in the traditional picture except for in the AGI/human purpose hypothesis from the OP, as far as I am aware.

• ~

• Dawkins underlines that genes may not be so concerned for survival, but the AGI/human purpose hypothesis underscores that additionally, that general intelligence may be the thing that survives, and since humans may not necesarily be approximating behaviours that facilitate the survival of genes, general intelligence may "survive" in the form of artificial general intelligence..
• ## Pages

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.