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.
@TBW
Wow. I'm glad YOU can understand that stuff. Most things on this site I can follow. This whole entropy thing, however, scrambles my circuits worse than a bowl of cooked spaghetti.
Haha. Yes, Many simply only conceive of entropy in the form of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
So to consider other stand points can be perplexing to some I would imagine, Such as statistical mechanical entropy.
1.) In stark contrast, "TheBlindWatchmaker" has demonstrated that he/she lacks understanding of my paper, and the cited resources.
2.) He/she claimed that my paper merely regarded equations about the brain, which is false, given that a majority of my hypothesis refers to the connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, not constrained to the human brain!
3.) As a quick example, contrary to TBW's false claim, here's a statement from paper by Gross, which my hypothesis uses:
"Our results suggest a potentially general thermodynamic model of adaptive behavior as a nonequilibrium process in open systems."
4.) As you can see above, contrary to your comrade's claim, these processes are reasonably not constrained to the human brain (especially given that the laws of physics permits adaptive behaviour in things beyond the scope of human intelligence, in the regime of AGI/ASI).
@PGJ Re: Your attempt to explain how TBW was wrong
*POP!*.... *fizzle*.... *odor of burning electronics*.... Well, shit. There goes another fuse I gotta replace. Just glad this one doesn't affect my sight circuits like the last one that blew. Pardon me, folks. I'll be back in a few...
@ TM
Maybe your overcooked mess you call spaghetti. Mine is of course perfectly al dente and the sauce clings to it like a satisfied woman.
An expansion on my theory of purpose:
1. The failure of evolutionary meaning.
Firstly, evolution is infamously unable to provide reasonable explanations for psychological phenomena; so I do want to discard it at the outset. Most of its explanations are post hoc, they are formulated after the fact. For example, the neocortex is called thus, because it was once believed to have been the most recently evolved part of the brain, accounting for our unique human behaviors; however as new techniques arrived, we now know birds and even reptiles (which are supposed to be ancient evolutionary cousins) have structures functionally homologous to the mammalian neocortex. In other words, it isn’t a newly evolved feature, and its not unique to us. When something has a function, evolution tries to make up a reason for it; but when something doesn’t have a function, evolution says it’s just a byproduct or epiphenomenon. Some on this thread have tried to use evolutionary trains of thought, to understand purpose. Overall, I see evolutionary explanations as useless.
2. Animal-environment relationship.
Newer schools of psychology have taken an ecological approach; by that it means we no longer isolate the individual into its own mental bubble, instead we understand the individual by understanding its environment, and vice versa. Biology says form fits function, psychology says function fits field (environment). As a result, each species inhabits their own slice of reality. Evolution isn’t entirely useless in this regard, because although mutations are random, natural selection is not. Natural selection is a filter; whatever traits pass through tell us something about reality. Evolution can’t give us something that is contrary to reality, obviously enough. So whatever functions we have, must be possible and meaningful within the environment.
3. Pragmatism.
Much of science is based on the practicality of its theories. “You shall know them by their fruits” more or less. A theory that can’t predict, and can’t produce positive results, is both a useless theory, and arguably incompatible with reality. Likewise, a theory that does predict and does produce positive results, is a good theory, and we can deduce that it tells us something about reality.
4. Practical Meaning.
Now, the search for meaning is very much a part of everyone’s life. Studies and polls show meaning is one of the most important things for people. We also know the detrimental effects of losing meaning, among which is depression. Cognostic said above, "Only a delusional moron would assign purpose to humanity." That is a problematic statement, because the essence of a delusion is a belief which contradicts reality; and the practical benefits and consequences of finding meaning show it doesn’t contradict reality. Having meaning and purpose improves health, increases life expectancy, and a whole assortment of benefits. A person displays almost the complete opposite when they lose meaning. How is that delusional, when it works and predicts?
5. Conclusion. In my opinion, the delusional position is the one which thinks we don’t have meaning and purpose. The one which ignores its benefits and successes (pragmatism). Moreover, since the animal and the environment are complimentary to each other, not contradictory to each other, then our necessity for meaning must be telling us something about the reality we occupy. As a consequence of this, I also don’t think meaning is unique for different people. That does not mean we cannot find meaning and purpose in different things. But it does mean we all have a psychologically similar direction from which our meaning must come from. It may be the case that someone which finds meaning in family, benefits more than someone which finds meaning in music, and they in turn benefit more than someone which finds meaning in collecting coins. We all have a similar purpose, despite the differences.
"Firstly, evolution is infamously unable to provide reasonable explanations for psychological phenomena"
- This is actually not entirely the case, and a source for debate in the actual scientific community.
Works on the likes of the Cinderella affect, Cheater Detection, Mate preferences, Sexual Jealousy and so on, Have provided strong and compelling evidence.
The authors of these works have also successfully refuted criticisms from sceptics in the field of psychology.
Furthermore, You did not really offer any real evidence, citations or peer review papers as to why it fails to account for meaning.
"animal environment relationships"
I will respond to this head on here, ecological relationships are the relationships between an organism in its ecosystem.
The organisms in said ecosystem are all connected with interactions dependant on its previous one.
The ecological relationship an organism has depends on the way the organism adapted to its environmental pressures on evolutionary basis.
I would also point you in the direction of ecological systems theory.
"Much of science is based on the practicality of its theories"
- Actually science is based on its methodology of simply put: question, hypothesize, experiment, obersvation/data recording, analysis and sharing results.
"A theory that can’t predict, and can’t produce positive result"
- Science doesn't seek positive results, just results. If the results don't concord with hypothesis, you simply start again.
"Now, the search for meaning is very much a part of everyone’s life"
- Citation required to prove this claim, I do not for instance so the claim can be rejected.
"Having meaning and purpose improves health, increases life expectancy, and a whole assortment of benefits"
"studies and polls show meaning is one of the most important things for people"
- Any peer reviewed to support this? again citations required.
"because the essence of a delusion is a belief which contradicts reality"
- And rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.
- I would like to see the evidence of this, although I would imagine it would form a hasty generalisation fallacy.
"The one which ignores its benefits and successes (pragmatism)"
- This approach is fallible in that it does not consider theoretical considerations.
@Watch Maker
Very nice. Great having you aboard.
1. You'll often find that things like mate preference, jealousy, and the Cinderella effect, are post hoc evolutionary explanations. They are ways to rationalize evolution with observations, as opposed to finding observations using evolution. Mate selection is a good example. We already know men prefer younger women, so evolutionists came along and said this is because it implies health, which implies offspring survival, which secures the preference through generations. But research now shows there's no significant correlation between appearance and health, so that goes out the window. Other evolutionary explanations, like those for jealousy, are often better understood through a sociocultural lens
2. I more or less agree with what you said on ecological relationships; if there’s disagreement I do not see it.
3. I think pointing to the methods of science doesn’t affect my statement. Science is as much interpretation as it is experimentation. How science is done, and what science is trying to do are two sides of the same coin.
4. Citation: Viktor Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning. Section: The Will To Meaning. Make that your starting point; if you wish more sources, I’ll provide them as the conversation evolves.
5. The pragmatic approach doesn’t ignore theoretical considerations. It just distinguishes between the good and bad ones based on their results.
- You wanted to discard evolutionary explanations from the outset within the broad sweeping statement of your first paragraph,
But now you are saying they are 'often' post hoc?! Do you see the problem here?
And again you are claiming that research shows no correlations between appearance and health, thus throwing it out.
I would strongly doubt all the evidence leads to this conclusion, and perhaps you have read a paper that supports this without reading the refutations.
To simply put aside all the good work and progress made is fairly poor form.
- I'm glad you do, as that is a fact.
- On point three it was more a clarification of the nature of science and its method, the main point of disagreement was your statement that science seeks positive results, which is wrong.
- Thank you for the citation, that will be amongst my reading material in the near future.
And I look forward to further discussions with you.
Sorry lol, I'm not sure I understand the problem you're pointing out at the beginning. I did want to discard evolutionary explanation because they are post hoc.
As far as the health/attractiveness explanation, I don't know if you have access to a database, but here's one such paper. I normally don't bother putting my sources; but then again people rarely ask for them: Does Human Facial Attractiveness Honestly Advertise Health?
I do want to point out that I didn't say science seeks positive results; all results are informative. My statement was in regard to theories in the absence of positive results. Which often means you have to modify or discard the theory.
- Because whilst yes I agree many are post hoc, not all are.
And to simply sweep away all the evidence to support it is in poor form and unscientific.
In actuality it tends to smack of someone wanting to dismiss evidence that could potential de-rail their own points of view.
But we are agreed many aspects are indeed post hoc, but again I must stress, in science this does not dismiss validity.
- Thank you for the link again, I shall get around to eventually - When I'm not snowed under. lol
- "A theory that can't predict and can't produce positive results, is both a useless theory"
I merely pointed out that in science you are just collecting data, which will either conform or refute the hypothesis made.
Oh I want to play too:
If we have feces, then our purpose is to paint the walls with it.
If we have cancer, the our purpose is to die.
If we have an open wound, then our purpose is to rub the blood on our face.
If we have hands and throats, then our purpose is to choke other people to death.
Start the gymnastics!
Feces is called excrement precisely because it is something we excrete; it is not part of our anatomy nor our identity. Still, it does have a purpose, namely, to eliminate waste and toxins from our bodies. Cancer, diseases, and wounds are disruptions in our normal form and functions. It is by looking at such disruptions, that neuropsychologists are able to determine the functions of the brain.
Well, have you ever potty-trained someone?
It is suggested that many llittle ones have difficulty pooping in a toilet because they are concerned that they are losing a part of themselves.
@Cyber Re: "... many llittle ones have difficulty pooping in a toilet because they are concerned that they are losing a part of themselves."
Well, THAT'S interesting. I never knew that. Learn something new every day. LOL
I've heard it before; don't know much else. Although, I do know children are also unable to distinguish between their thoughts and the thoughts of others.
@John 6
"Feces is called excrement precisely because it is something we excrete; it is not part of our anatomy nor our identity. Still, it does have a purpose, namely, to eliminate waste and toxins from our bodies. "
Unlike urine. Its Purpose is to tan leather. So's dog shit's and pigeon poo's. Gratifying for dog's and pigeons to know that, dont you think, since they serve no higher Purpose in the Plan ? "No Heaven for you, but thanks for the leather three seater." Everyone likes to feel useful and valued.
And before you say it, have a gif:
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
As a teen, my purpose (per my geocities website I made when websites were new) "life liberty and the persue of loose women and brew".
I'm older now, and priorities have changed. My purpose is to provide for my family. And enjoy my family and friends as much as possible and appreciate the time I have with them. Unfortunately I spend most of my time working and some time to sleep and eat and drive, so there isn't as.much time for family.as I would like. Welcome to the real world!
a.) It appears you didn't read beyond the first sentence of my hypothesis; the paper, contrary to your claim encompasses analyses/mathematical sequences, regarding entropy maximization, human intelligence, and AGI/ASI.
1.) If you feel all of my hypothesis refers to the human brain, then you simply don't understand the paper. In particular, only one section of several refers to precise equations regarding the human brain.
2.) So, I didn't cherry pick; other sections (in fact a majority of my hypothesis) describe how entropy is reasonably maximized as intelligence gets more complicated or general. (i.e. humans may yield yet another regime of more general intelligence, or AGI/ASI, as nature prescribes via entropy maximization.)
3.) At the very beginning of the paper purpose is expressed as an objective. (And I didn't create a novel meaning for the word purpose, I use typical definition, as typically described in dictionaries.)
4.) As an example, see Alex Wissner Gross' paper (that is used in my hypothesis), where a relation between intelligence and entropy maximization is reasoned. Notice that this is not constrained to human intelligence!
4.b) As a quick example, contrary to TBW's false claim, here's a statement from paper by Gross, which my hypothesis uses:
"Our results suggest a potentially general thermodynamic model of adaptive behavior as a nonequilibrium process in open systems."
4.c) As you can see above, contrary to your false claim, these processes are not constrained to the human brain. (especially given that the laws of physics permits adaptive behaviour in things beyond the scope of human intelligence, in the regime of AGI/ASI).
5.) Did you actually read beyond the first sentence of my paper?
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
1.) In stark contrast, "TheBlindWatchmaker" has demonstrated that he/she lacks understanding of my paper, and the cited resources.
2.) He/she claimed that my paper merely regarded equations about the brain, which is false, given that a majority of my hypothesis refers to the connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, not constrained to the human brain!
3.) As a quick example, contrary to TBW's false claim, here's a statement from paper by Gross, which my hypothesis uses:
"Our results suggest a potentially general thermodynamic model of adaptive behavior as a nonequilibrium process in open systems."
4.) As you can see above, contrary to your comrade's claim, these processes are reasonably not constrained to the human brain (especially given that the laws of physics permits adaptive behaviour in things beyond the scope of human intelligence, in the regime of AGI/ASI).
@PGJ Re: Your attempt to explain to me how TBW was wrong
*POP!*.... *fizzle*... *odor of burning electronics*.... Well, shit. There goes another fuse I gotta replace. Just glad this one didn't affect my sight circuits like the last one that blew. Pardon me, folks. I'll be back in a few....
- Says the person who cannot support their hypothesis, A proverbial fallacy merry go round.
- I never made that claim, stop trying to bait and switch as you have done with many people on this thread.
- Again, Cherry picking.
Furthermore, In science there is a difference between facts/laws and potential models.
- And yet again, Your 'hypothesis' provides no equations or data to analyse of your own independent testing,
and simply relies upon your interpretation of the work with others where you then link this to 'purpose'
- Once more, How are you defining 'purpose' is it fitting the narrative of this thread? What are the predictive qualities of your 'hypothesis'?, Where are your own independent equations?, What predictions and data analysis can you provide to prove a causal link between entropy within said system and 'purpose'? And finally, What form of entropy are you employing?
Fish1: So what is wrong with not having a purpose, anyway ?
Good question! I think it's purpose-envy.
Other people, especially theists, claim to have a purpose, so we all think we should have one. But unlike the Blues Brothers, I'm NOT on a mission from god. I don't have to explain why I'm here, any more than a tree or star has to explain its existence.
What you may be missing, is that regardless of your feelings, human intelligence may be observed in a range of properties precluding entropy maximization, so human objective or purpose may be derived absent subjective feelings/theistic endeavour..
@PGJso human objective or purpose may be derived absent subjective feelings/theistic endeavour..
Or not.
" purpose-envy"
:-D
Love it!
Precisely.
In other words, your prior words were far too confident:
Thus, a better thing for a scientist to say is:
Of course, given that you may not want to contribute anything of substance to the discussion, you could maintain your original stance, especially given that you've provided zero scientific support.
PGJOf course, given that you may not want to contribute anything of substance to the discussion
Just a little vinegar dressing on your word salad.
1. A valid expression would instead be that my expressions appear like word-salad *to you*.
2. Pertinently physicists and mathematicians have been observed to detect my expressions regarding purpose as straightforward/feasible.
3. Notably, that you don't understand something, doesn't suddenly warrant it to be "word salad".
Pages