1.) In discussion, I've come to find that many readers have an issue with the use of the word "purpose", in a hypothesis of mine regarding the purpose of human life.
2.) People here tend to enter discussion, not recognizing that their prior memory about the "word" purpose, may be narrower than what it may actually be defined to encompass. (And consequently, they criticize that narrow description, instead of other available descriptions in science)
3.) For example, most people here tend to confuse the "teleological argument" (an argument for supposed creators of our universe), with "teleology in biology/teleonomy (purpose in the scope of biology/evolution etc)".
4.) This post was made to remind readers that biology/evolution (which my hypothesis relates non-trivially to) may concern purpose, without the need for some argument for supposed creators of our universe, nor the requirement for subjectivity/personal feelings.
5.) In simpler words, purpose is reasonably objective, as per Wikipedia/Teleology in biology Or Teleonomy!
6.) Sample from Wikipedia/Teleonomy (2014, The purpose of purpose): "Richard Dawkins described the properties of "archeo-purpose" (by natural selection) and "neo-purpose" (by evolved adaptation) in his talk on the "Purpose of Purpose". Dawkins attributes the brain's flexibility as an evolutionary feature in adapting or subverting goals to making neo-purpose goals on an overarching evolutionary archeo-purpose. Language allows groups to share neo-purposes, and cultural evolution - occurring much faster than natural evolution - can lead to conflict or collaborations"
**End note**:
b.) This thread was made to show that I am not at fault thereafter; that I am aware of evidence that shows that purpose may occur in the context of science, does not suddenly warrant me (or any scientist that is also aware of such evidence) to be "pseudointellectual" in this regard.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
You may equate "purpose" with the laws of nature, but you also have a habit of equating your opinion with the laws of nature.
1.) On the contrary, you have demonstrated (in "Reference-A" below) that you confused the "teleological argument" (an argument for supposed creators of our universe), with "teleology in biology/teleonomy (purpose in the scope of biology/evolution etc)".
1.b) Reference-A: Your false claim, that I had supposedly argued for the existence of supposed creators of our universe.
1.c) Reference-B: My response to your false claim, showing evidence of purpose in the context of science.
When you give a "purpose" to "life" beyond a simple manifestation of natural law, such as an intent to create "Artificial General Intelligence", you are making a teleological argument.
I don't detect the relevance of your comments.
If it can be 'reasonably' described as objective, then it can be 'reasonably' be described as 'subjective'.
Pointless post, and yet another desperate attempt to spam your opinion.
1.) I don't detect the relevance of your redundant, remarks.
2.) That the word purpose may be defined to be subjective had been long expressed by myself, here.
2.b) Reference, and old thread of mine: "Purpose is not limited to theistic endeavour..."
3.) However, as I had also long expressed, that the word purpose may be defined subjectively, does not suddenly warrant that it can't be defined objectively!
4.) Notably, my hypothesis aims to be objective, contrary to many claims here that purpose is merely subjective.
Your speculations cannot be objective, because they are not based on observation, nor are they falsifiable.
"If it can be 'reasonably' described as objective, then it can be 'reasonably' be described as 'subjective'."
1.) I don't detect the relevance of your redundant, remarks.
3.) However, as I had also long expressed, that the word purpose may be defined subjectively, does not suddenly warrant that it can't be defined objectively!
That is pretty spectacular!
Oh how I hate pseudo intellectuals. Can you imagine an conversation with this guy at a party? What a frigging buzz killer. This disjointed verbiage is so unsystematically and indiscriminately stuffed together that all you have is "Word Salad." (For those of you that don't know, word salad is a psychological term that can be equated to talking in tongues while using real words strung together in random ways. )
1. There is no "purpose" to human life until you demonstrate it. Your attempts thus far are laughable. All you are doing is assigning purpose without factual support. You are connecting things that make no sense being connected.
2. If people have a "NARROW" perception of the word "PURPOSE" it is not their fault. You are the one making the assertion and it is up to you to clearly define what it is you are talking about. You do not get to "CONTINUE SHIFTING THE GOAL POSTS EACH TIME YOU ARE CAUGHT IN A BIND."
3. Now here is a prime example of verbiage gone insane. WTF are you talking about. You think that alluding to abstraction serves your argument? If you think people are confused about the teleological argument in cosmology and biology feel free to explain your position. In both cosmology and biology descriptions are descriptive and not prescriptive. The fallacy of comparing that which is naturally occurring to that which is created (A GROSS CATEGORY ERROR) applies in both cases.
4. WTF - Now I know why I never take the time to read your posts. What in the hell did you think you were saying because what I read made no sense at all. If you are hoarding the drugs, stop and share. This is just a rambling run on of assertion and nonsense.
5. Yes, a purpose can be objective. Just not in any way that you are using the term. So, what's your point? You wanna sit about and argue semantics. If you think human live has a purpose, 'PROVE IT,"
6. So you can copy and paste from Wickapedia, a horrible source for citing scientific results by the way. "Purpose" as defined by Dawkins and the mad ramblings you are on about have nothing at all in common.
DAWKINS ON PURPOSE
Dawkins noted that asking ‘why’ for inanimate objects like air or rocks is almost always considered inappropriate. But asking ‘why’ living organisms are seems to often have been done in the past. He noted a number of amusing instances, such as claims that (THE PURPOSE OF) domestic animals provide a means to keep their meat fresh until we have need to eat them, (THE PURPOSE OF LICE)lice was a strong incentive to cause personal cleanliness, (AND THE PURPOSE OF) large predators allowed hunters to test their courage.
"This mindset persists to this day, said Dawkins, popping up the Ray Comfort “banana” video, which got an especially large dollop of audience laughter with Comfort’s assertion that the banana has just the right shape to fit in the human mouth. Dawkins noted that, unfortunately, the video was not simply a joke. Comfort apparently has offered to give Dawkins $10,000 to debate Comfort. Dawkins responded saying that he would take Comfort up on that only if Comfort donated $100K to Dawkins’ new foundation. Then Dawkins compared the modern, domesticated version of the banana to the fruit of the wild banana, showing that many of the properties that Comfort was ascribing to God’s design were actually choices made in artificial selection by humans. Some of the attitudes remain even in those who have abandoned a religious viewpoint, especially when it comes to seeing humans as part of the panoply of life and not separate from it, as when people ascribe the grave sin of murder to aborting a human fetus, while cheerfully eating a cow. The question to be asked is not whether something can reason, or talk, but rather whether it can suffer."
When Dawkins speaks of purpose, you have no idea at all what he is referring to.
1.) On the contrary, see falsifiability wrt my hypothesis here.
2.) You are yet to admit that your claim stemmed from an error of yours, (as seen in "Reference-A" below) where you confused the "teleological argument" (an argument for supposed creators of our universe), with "teleology in biology/teleonomy (purpose in the scope of biology/evolution etc)".
3.) Reference-A: Your false claim, that I had supposedly argued for the existence of supposed creators of our universe.
4.) Reference-B: My response to your false claim, showing evidence of purpose in the context of science.
5.) Why bother to ignore your errors?
If you say a thing has purpose because it has been defined as a thing, you are being tautological. Such a claim is not falsifiable. If you define life as having a goal, you are making a teleological argument, which cannot be proven unless you are outside nature.
Can you disprove a statement such as "Why is the purpose of life the creation of polar bears?"?
1.) I hadn't switched any goal posts, I had long been underlining that purpose is not merely subjective.
2.) Reference: See all my posts regarding life's purpose. (Or see LucyAustralopithecus's purpose thread, where ally responses have been consistent, ironically contrary to your inconsistency)
2.) I had long stated that the purpose I refer to related to evolution. (See my hypothesis)
3.) At least you and your comrades are now aware that purpose is not merely subjective.
Why do you refuse to admit the difference between a teleological argument" (an argument for supposed creators of our universe), and "Teleolonomy or teleology in biology?
I take it you cannot disprove that the purpose of life is the creation of polar bears.
Pointless subject anyway, saying your particular opinion in 'reasonable' when having a scientific discussion is equivalent to saying, "well, my mate reckons!"
It holds no weight.
1.) Contrary to your claim that purpose may only be subjective, my hypothesis aims to be objective.
2.) Recall that you had insisted that purpose was merely subjective. Why bother to refuse to admit your error? How do you benefit from rejecting evidence?
3.) You ought not to confuse the "teleological argument" (an argument for supposed creators of our universe), with "teleology in biology/teleonomy (purpose in the scope of biology/evolution etc)"!
Because that is where the bulk of scientific evidence leads, that how science works.
Unlike you who postulates a hypothesis that relies on others work, and those papers are deeply questionable.
It's already been pointed out that the papers you cite aren't peer reviewed, or even agreed upon theories within the scientific community.
Give it up, spam on other sites.
1.) Science constantly builds upon itself. It is no surprise that modern work builds upon prior work.
2.) Furthermore, new theories/hypotheses ought to be scrutinized. While TheBlindwatchmaker cites scientists that dispute the papers I cite, TheBlindwatchmaker conveniently excluded that scientists detect that said papers are sensible (perhaps to suit his/her false claims).
3.) In other words, that some scientists may disagree with portions of the papers I cite, does not suddenly invalidate those papers!
Nor does it validate them, which undermines your very own hypothesis, and leaves it looking week and clutching at straws.
Science is a malleable construct, subject to constant updating.
I detect that my hypothesis may bear fruit.
What about you, do you have any hypotheses or theories of your own?
In regards to your hypothesis, I would personally keep a watchful eye on the development and testing of Supersymmetry, most notably at the LHC.
Not just because it adds credence to your paper in that you finally have some evidence for it, but the findings of Supersymmetry would unify physics.
Since he just threw the word in to sound "sciency" the detection of a supersymmetric particle won't add shit.
Interesting point
True, I just was more interested in seeing it happen.
Would be nice to better to understand dark matter and dark energy.
1.) As I had long stated, it is feasible that learning algorithms may derive benefits from supersymmetric methods (i.e. formal methods from supercharge compatible special unitary matrices) without the need for observation of Supersymmetry at the LHC.
2.) In simpler words, we may use formal method/maths from supersymmetry, to represent data in the weights of some artificial neural network, absent the need for Supersymmetry to be LHC-verified.
3.) I also tend to mention that if Supersymmetry is observed, this could evoke more interest in models such as my Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network.
4.) It is no surprise that people without PhD's or Masters will find my model strange. However, from my interactions, professors or PhD holders, tend to find my model straight forward.
5.) Sample discussions with PhD Holders:
A fun exchange between myself and Garret Lisi (PHd theoretical physicist, inventor of E8 theory, a grand unified theory of everything) wrt my "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network": https://imgur.com/X6eZ5FC.png
A discussion about my "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network", with PHd computer scientist Eray, on a public facebook board. (Eray is winner of 2015 Kurzweil Idea Awards, for his contributions to universal induction): See the first post regarding the "Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network" on this facebook discussion.
"It is no surprise that people without PhD's or Masters will find my model strange. However, from my interactions, professors or PhD holders, tend to find my model straight forward".
- Arguing from authority now
How do you know the people in here do not have PhD's or Masters?
Continuing my series of de-packing the rantings of a crackpot:
He is confusing supersymmetry with exterior algebra. I'm guessing he doesn't know the difference or he thinks supersymmetry sounds a lot more sexy than exterior algebra. Perhaps even both.
It looks like you missed something called "Lie Superalgebra", from the main page of my model.