Feedback and Notes

 

Imagine No Religion

Latest Activity

Mrs.B commented on Michel's group The Daily Cosmos or Interesting Facts about the Universe
13 hours ago
Stephen commented on Michel's group The Daily Cosmos or Interesting Facts about the Universe
13 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
18 hours ago
Stephen commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
18 hours ago
Stephen commented on Moayad Al-Mahamead's blog post the so called scientific miracles of the Quran , a draft
18 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Adriana's group Freethought and Funny Bones
19 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion, Please!
19 hours ago
Stephen commented on Hope's group Imagine No Religion, Please!
20 hours ago
Stephen commented on A Former Member's group The Burgeoning Family Tree of Monkey Men and Women
20 hours ago
Stephen posted photos
20 hours ago
Stephen posted blog posts
20 hours ago
Mrs.B commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Stephen commented on Doone has Fremdschämen's group Canada, Mexico most of the World and Some Nutty Country ruled by a Cockroach Rider News
yesterday
Stephen left a comment for aholt
yesterday
Daniel W commented on Stephen's blog post No Title
yesterday
Stephen left a comment for Daniel Mckeever
yesterday
Stephen left a comment for Crawford van schalkwyk
yesterday
Stephen commented on Neal's photo
yesterday
Neal posted a photo
yesterday
Stephen commented on Chris's group Right Wing Whackos
Thursday

We are a worldwide social network of freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and secular humanists.

Be it atheists or theists, many may feel human life may be purposeless or untenable; i.e. a never ending search or a "why" question that's perhaps not worth asking.

I think there's a viable alternative to especially the "purposeless" based outlook, with the introduction of a recent concept called "teleonomy", which is an atheistic/scientific way to describe nature in purpose driven language. (In fact, as seen on Wikipedia/teleonomy, Richard Dawkins; recently introduced the treatments “archeo” and “neo” purpose. See his video/speech "the purpose of purpose".)

Anyway, for example, using the laws of thermodynamics, we can try to objectively discover non-trivial goals that humans may undertake, as far as nature goes. (i.e. grand purposes for the human species, that reasonably transcend the desires of individual humans, while seeking to be objective, much like how Science tends to follow the evidence, aiming to describe what the cosmos actually is, rather than what people may want the cosmos to be.)

Note: One may reasonably grasp an understanding of the summaries below, without clicking on the associated wikipedia etc sources. One may however get an even more wholesome understanding, by toggling the links conveniently provided throughout the summaries.




Hypothesis A - An atheist PhD psychologist named Michael Price, hypothesizes that future humans are probably supposed to replicate universes [2017]: "Michael's variant of Cosmological Natural Selection I":


The original version of CNS I stems from a concept called Cosmological Natural Selection by physicist Lee Smolin.

  1. Cosmological Natural Selection, posits that our universe likely stemmed from a process that like evolution or biological natural selection, spun many universes; where the best universe instances emerge from universes that possess excellent replication abilities/properties, through the utilization of blackholes. Intelligent life is said to be an accidental by-product of this replication process
  2. Cosmological Natural Selection I (CNS I), additionally posits that intelligent life is a viable factor for replicating universes.
  3. Michael Price’s variant of CNS I, additionally posits that intelligent life is a likely core influence on the successful generation of replicating universes, where Michael surmises that human intelligence is the most “improbably complex” outcome of the cosmos thus far. Michael ranks modern humans to be a step in the direction towards future human intelligence, that will be able to create non-arbitrary universes. Thereafter, Michael expresses that the scientific purpose of humans is reasonably, ultimately to replicate universes like ours.


Hypothesis B - An atheist computer scientist named Jordan Bennett, hypothesizes that a grand human purpose is probably to create Artificial General Intelligence [2015]: "Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artificial general intelligence?"

  1. In understanding Jordan's hypothesis, one may imagine entropy as a currency in an economy.
  2. Agents/organisms that get work done (access to activities) in nature, must pay up some entropy, you don't do work or have access to activities, without paying up some entropy.
  3. Highly Intelligent things (like humans) reasonably pay more entropy, compared to less intelligent things or non intelligent things, because humans do more work i.e. many cognitive tasks (thinking about science, doing scientific stuff) compared to lesser intelligences or non intelligent things.
  4. In a similar way, chimps may pay more entropy than say less intelligent things, because they do more work, or have access to more complicated activities. (More access to activities result from more access to stuff called "macrostates" in the OP's second hypothesis regarding Artificial General Intelligence.)
  5. Likewise, Artificial General Intelligence[AGI] or Artificial Super Intelligence[ASI] when built, will have access to more cognitive activities, and they'll get more work done than humans. So, they'll reasonably pay more entropy to the thermodynamic system that is nature.
  6. This means there is reasonably a pattern, nature is finding more and more ways to extract more and more entropy from activities done (i.e. entropy maximization), and nature reasonably does this by building smarter and smarter things. Humans thus likely won't be the last thing nature finds to derive entropy from work; there will likely be AGI or ASI or whatever smarter thing that follows humans. (Laws of physics permits smarter things than humans overall)

Crucially, Science can reasonably describe how organic life began (namely, via evolutionary principle etc) and also, reasonably where human life perhaps seeks to go (again, via evolutionary principle etc, as described in the hypotheses above.)




Footnotes:

  1. An atheist PhD psychologist hypothesizes that future humans are probably supposed to replicate universes [2017]: "Cosmological Natural Selection, Cosmological Evolution and the Futu...".
  2. An atheist computer scientist hypothesizes that a grand human purpose is probably to create Artificial General Intelligence [2015]: "Why the purpose of the human species is probably to create artifici...?"
  3. Video summary:

 

Views: 301

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

No!  

You stated, "Scientific hypotheses are valid ways of attempting to extend scientific work, while being substantiated by prior evidence. For example, prior to the atom's observation, there were valid scientific hypotheses that inquired about their existence."

In science a Hypothesis is Not accepted as valid.  It is a question that has to be testable!  If it is not testable, nor falsifiable, it is quite literally Bull Shit.  Like the concept of "Dark Energy" or "Dark  Matter"  No evidence, for these whatsoever.  But I will tell you what can be measured and proven...Religious Memes.  First law of Science, "Creation is Impossible"  A better word, the accurate word is Formation.. The last greatest Religious Meme infecting Scientific thought is the notion of creation!

Total Insanity...that is probably why we are going to go the way of Mars.  Joey

We can't ignore possibilites

I agree with the crap ppl stuff the planet with

so I don't own a car haven't for like ever

but the majority of conned-sumers go on like four year olds

if their air conditioning has to turn off to stop excessive heat venting or catching the bus-walking to school---I could go on ---but the future is

everywhere---

Scientific hypotheses must be testable if they are ever going to develop into theories.

If an hypotheses is Not testable, nor falsifiable, it is a guess, an odd conjecture.   It must be testable, or falsifiable, to ever be considered as a scientific hypotheses.  I can claim that invisible, magic monkeys parachute out of my butt every night and spin the world on its axis and that's what keeps the whole thing going!  Well you can't disprove that they exist, you cannot prove that they do!  Angels sleep over my bed at night!  Ha!  We can create gibberish ad-infinitum, but it leads no where.

A scientific hypotheses is a learned proposal, that in it's formulation allows it  to be testable.  If it is not testable, it is fantasy and gibberish....Insane.    Joey

The evidence I offer is existence...Empirically experienced existence!  if you talk about a god, there is no empirical referent for god, so you are talking Insanity, nonsense.  If you talk about a street, that makes sense, because I can reference it in actuality, I can go out and see a street.  That is sanity in a Nutshell.  God or God belief is The Definitive description of Ultimate Insanity.  Joey

My evidence is Empirical, based on observation and experiment.  First of all, I have forgotten more about scientific hypotheses, than you will ever know!  But this was never about how I feel, it's about what I Think!  I think that flowers bloom, species are reproducing, including people...now you may hate life, but it is here, and it will overcome your hatred of everything living.  You hide behind a false sense of wisdom, but I suspect you are quite lifeless.  I do not know this, but this is what I sense from your post.  My suggestion is, if you want to die go do it and leave everyone else Alone!   Joey

Chris' words:

Some if not many ideas you presented aren't worth asking.

If you think  there is a purpose for humans or any other specie outside of anthopormorphic ego and  think that someone with a Ph.d - many who I think ar phuds  Perhaps some of the information in the following link may be of interest.

From that I understand that many with religious based backgrounds aren't able to move into randomnes and don't understand infinity.   There doesn't have to be an explination for things.

Do you think that the future is predestened, or pre ordained?

Phuds for example thoes interested in  theoretical phisics are not much more than science preists.  There isn't much proof behind their theories.

My response:

  1. You seem to be responding to comments I did not make, I had not mentioned that Science currently explains all things. [See Wikipedia/Strawman]
  2. As I mentioned before, the OP does not offer that its contents are the only answers. Please recall that the OP opens by admitting that life may in fact be quite purposeless, although it seeks to draw on evidence to underline other possibilities.
  3. At best the cosmos is probably "pseudo random" rather than random. It seems you have a naive awareness of the topic of randomness, but ironically claim others to lack awareness.

Anyway, have you conceived of any scientific models regarding some atheistic/scientific/teleonomic purpose of the human species? Or are you stuck in the old belief that purpose is supposedly monopolized by religious or subjective endeavour?

I agree!

Chris' words:

"Artificial intellegence is nothing other than mathemeticians, scientists, and computer programers conceptualizing what they think they can put into a computer program based on the information available.   People who don't understand that are fools."

My response:

I am unable to detect any valuable point in your remark above. Care to expound?

Chris' words:

"Where do you do you want to go Blue Grey Brain?

I'm more than happy too travel with this.."

My response:

I don't think I have traveled beyond the scope of hypotheses seen in the OP. The one regarding artificial general intelligence is perhaps the most reasonable hypothesis regarding human purpose thus far.

entropy maximization is total equilibrium otherwise known as death. or on the cosmic scale the heat death of the universe.

as far as 'scientific purpose' that in itself makes no sense. science investigates. it does not intend any result to have any predetermined purpose. that is teleological. not science.

the beauty of an indifferent universe and a meaningless life except as life in and of itself however defined leaves as such interpretations open. as open as the universe. if there was meaning it would be a closed system doomed to entropy.

as for replicating a universe: for what? perfection? that too is a dead end. if not, just for fun but where is the energy coming from in the first place? you need a universe's worth of energy for that. sounds dodgy.

as for creating 'artificial intelligence' that is an oxymoron. intelligence cannot be artificial. a calculating computational even quantum light drive field-wave-state computer will never be intelligent by our analogue standards. because of paradox in alogical system thinking. computers cannot do this. because all logical systems are closed system. and prone to decay. to corruption of codes. to entropy. loss of inherent energy. not only that closed systems are self isolation. good for little things. but useless in an open universe where bio-sentient-evolving-life, without an end, is continual re-creation. continual dynamics. constant evolving. endless revolution. computational machines are static calculating devices which are totally clueless as to any cognitive content of the data they are working with. a car may have horse power but it is not a horse.

Lutz' words:

"entropy maximization is total equilibrium otherwise known as death. or on the cosmic scale the heat death of the universe. 

as far as 'scientific purpose' that in itself makes no sense. science investigates. it does not intend any result to have any predetermined purpose. that is teleological. not science.

the beauty of an indifferent universe and a meaningless life except as life in and of itself however defined leaves as such interpretations open. as open as the universe. if there was meaning it would be a closed system doomed to entropy.

as for replicating a universe: for what? perfection? that too is a dead end. if not, just for fun but where is the energy coming from in the first place? you need a universe's worth of energy for that. sounds dodgy.

as for creating 'artificial intelligence' that is an oxymoron. intelligence cannot be artificial. a calculating computational even quantum light drive field-wave-state computer will never be intelligent by our analogue standards. because of paradox in alogical system thinking. computers cannot do this. because all logical systems are closed system. and prone to decay. to corruption of codes. to entropy. loss of inherent energy. not only that closed systems are self isolation. good for little things. but useless in an open universe where bio-sentient-evolving-life, without an end, is continual re-creation. continual dynamics. constant evolving. endless revolution. computational machines are static calculating devices which are totally clueless as to any cognitive content of the data they are working with. a car may have horse power but it is not a horse."

My response:

  1. Entropy maximization is not total equilibrium. Crucially, the word "maximization" herein doesn't mean the maximum has already been attained. Things in the cosmos are reasonably maximizing entropy. Albeit, as stated in the hypothesis, yes, when entropy is finally maximized, the universe may come to an end, no life etc.
  2. Regarding teleology, you are commenting on ideas that I did not mention. [See Wikipedia/Strawman]
    • Crucially, it looks like you didn't know that:
      • Science concerns predictions. You may hear of scientists referring to predictive power in scientific models. This is quite common. This predictive nature of science does not imply the proposition of teleological predestined purpose. [See Wikipedia/Predictive power]
      • There is something called teleonomy, which contrasts teleology. Teleonomy consists of predictive tools, and it is an atheistic/scientific way to describe the cosmos in terms of purpose driven language. Teleonomy has contributions from militant atheists like Richard Dawkins, as underlined in the OP. It looks like you weren't aware of teleonomy before entering this discussion. Notably, religion does not have a monopoly on purpose.
  3. Regardless of your qualms with the label artificial intelligence, the basic idea is that humans are clumps of atoms or organic material that can generate general intelligence factor g, while human level ai-research seeks to generate similar measures of intelligence, in the form of inorganic material, or yet another clump of atoms.
    • In simpler words, we have clear evidence that materials in this universe (namely human flesh) can give rise to general intelligence. Scientists seek "simply" to replicate something like general intelligence, using again materials from the universe, only this time, inorganic material, namely artificial general intelligence.

strewth---wikipedia---the answer to the digital ignorance creating a coherency based on mere probability--without verification except pretentious obfuscation which impresses the digitally addicted who can't comprehend complexity unless there is an app for that to make it all so nice and easy without revealing the multidimensionalities within reality. Which no matter how reconstructed will never create 'intelligence' through 'artificial' means. If it were that easy then it would have been done. Neuro-scientists know how -foggy- any aspect of dynamic intelligence is. It is more a wave front than an electron. It is a multiple not an instant of a single process that is actually discreet and coherent. Realization is the input of more than its constituents. And that is where AI research- with its current parameters is up the spout. It thinks the brain is a machine. Very Victorian. What the mind generates is a field-wave-data-impregnated-space. No machine can create. It merely duplicates. Which might satisfy those whose intelligence is defined by constrained parameters.

RSS

© 2019   Created by Atheist Universe.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Service