Leaderboard

A blacksmith makes two knives- they are, for all practical purposes, identical. A surgeon buys one of the knives and uses it to save people. A mugger buys the other and uses it to kill. The knives have no purpose until someone chooses what they wish to do with it. Unless there's "someone" who is choosing what mankind is for, mankind has no purpose. And the idea that the "someone" exists is not science, because it's not testable.

! Moderator Note We're done with this. If you've read 8 pages of people telling you why science doesn't equal religion and can still make this statement, it's clear you aren't listening, you're just preaching. If you mention this in a mainstream science section, it will be off-topic and you will be suspended. Thread closed.

LMGTFY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_to_the_power_of_zero This is a surprising answer. I had assumed it would be simply "undefined" but apparently not.

This is getting repetetive and boring. Please stop misquoting respected scientists. Archeo-purpose is not real purpose, much like teleonomy, which is specifically invented to be able to use purpose-oriented language in the absence of purpose. If you want actual purpose, it is teleology you are looking for. Are you a new ager? Are you aware that you sound like a new ager?

This is a science forum. Not a stoned hippy ramblings forum. The first is officially the worst pop single ever recorded.

Ok, I guess I was thinking about spontaneous processes rather than computer algorithms. Why do you think an engineered problem solving/control algorithm is relevant to this topic? If it is a hypothesis, why do you present is as fact? How can your hypothesis, which diverges from the null hypothesis, be falsified? Except he doesn't mention "purpose in the realm of science". That's what you somehow make of it. I'm not. I see no reason to assume pseudo means anything other than "looks like, but not the real thing", as in "apparent". Why do you think it signifies "presence of purpose"? With archeo and neo, he simply wanted some catchy words for pseudo and actual. Catchy words make a great speech. It doesn't oppose the OP. It is simply delightfully applicable. No need to use the plural, though. I assume other readers don't need my enlightenment. Still, didactically, I think it would be more valuable if you found the link by yourself. It immediately answers all other points. Indeed it does not. There is nothing wrong with teleonomy.

And we do divide groups according to age. And doctors don't recommend having kids after a certain age because of the risks you mention. Age is not a social construct. Pigmentation is a difference of certain groups, at least in their eye color. And the predominance of very dark irises, with excessive pigmentation, such as I have, makes my group more prone to PDS Glaucoma. Notice I've always said groups, not races. Refusing to discuss such differences because historically ( and presently ) some jackasses use these differences to justify racism and atrocities like genocides, or pretending these differences don't exist, is shortsighted and substitutes one problem for another.

I agree, with the exception of "religions have no evidence to support what they claim". It would be more accurate to say they have 'no evidence to support much of or some of what they claim'. It is not a requirement of any religion I've heard of to never have evidence for any claims. Regardless though, Lasse didn't ask "is science a religion", Lasse asked "can science be my religion", and that is why I answered in the affirmative.

Every physical entity present a certain level of information. Information exist beyond the observable physical reality (metaphysical values as consciousness, intelligence, knowledge, personality etc) Does/should physical descriptions count with the presence of information? Can/should we count information as physical entity?

I think one of the cardamom was probably switched with something which looked like cardamom but wasn't (or more likely was cardamom plus something else). If you are willing to scam people and have the patience to practice then it is relatively easy to use the inattention or mis-attention of the mark to pull-off some audacious switches

You seem to be confusing thermodynamic entropy, which is a statistical property of many-particle systems, with the entropy used in the paper you keep linking to, which defines entropy as the amount of future histories available to single particles. The authors see similarities between how their algorithm works and how evolution works: trial and error, but any other deep connection is purely speculative. It is hardly the first time scientists have simulated complex emergent behaviour with a very stupid instruction set, so I don't see why this would be particularly special (apart from the ability to redefine certain problems in a convex way, which allows them to be solved more efficiently.). Your premise that evolution automatically leads to intelligence is further compomised by the fact it took so long for multicellular life to emerge. Beyond that, you seem to suggest this race for intelligence is maximised, ie as fast as possible, which raises the question why dinosaurs didn't get there. Many of them had free hands and they had hundreds of millions of years. Now if we for the sake of the argument assume this far-fetched premise is correct, that still leaves an even larger leap to purpose. For this final leap, you haven't provided the first step toward a tiniest hint of possible evidence, so it can only be a leap of faith. You seem to be the one doing the confusing. And please don't reply to this with the same Dawkins quote: nobody here shares your very liberal and apologetic interpretation of his words.

Nice. analogy +1

Too subtle? You are living in a creation of the imagination, the sole purpose of which is reproduction. I am the avatar of your dad and I have a pretty good idea who the avatar of your mum is. It's sort of a sleeping beauty situation, a love game, if you will. To understand why it's all done this way, look about you. Look at what happens when power is given to the unready. We are all equals, there are no gods, just a mum, a dad, and the kids. In order to “graduate” you must first become 'truly just'. Essentially, all the information that you really need, is contained within your own minds and the three videos above, study them. However; I'll give you a simplified definition of what 'truly just' is, to get you started. Choosing to do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and you want to. Finding universal, unconditional love. Questioning everything (don't believe anything just because someone "told you so"). All I want for you, is true happiness, and in order to become truly happy, you have to become truly just. It's a win, win, win, situation, really. True happiness is all that really matters. Everything else is just stuff. To become truly happy, you have to become truly just. When you become truly just, you get to “graduate”. A good starting point is, 'The Greater Good Science Centre'. They use science based techniques to help boost individual happiness. Repair yourselves...repair the world. I'm sure that by now some of you are starting to question my sanity...Good! Question everything! Long story short, space-time is set, but it's set by your choices. You cannot change your choices, but they were/are/will be, your choices. I am pretty sure who the avatar of your mum is, but we will never meet her by chance alone, and our meeting must be her choice. Like I said, it's a sleeping beauty type of thing...One kiss, and...? The ball's in your court. Do you interact with it or not?

Of what significance do you feel your remark above evokes wrt the OP? It looks like you didn't bother to at least read Wikipedia/Teleonomy (as pointed out in the OP)! Note: The OP concerns purpose in the realm of science/objectivity, rather than subjectivity/teleological argument. Please don't confuse purpose in the realm of science (teleonomy), with purpose in the realm of religion (teleological argument...). It ought to be a crime on these forums to confuse Science and religion, as you're doing in your response above! Example: 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.

-1, terrible display of common sense. The analogy is merely nice if you confuse purpose in the realm of science, with purpose in the realm of religion. It ought to be a crime to confuse Science and Religion on these forums. Once more, the OP concerns objective/scientific purpose, i.e. teleonomy, rather than religious/subjective purpose i.e. teleological argument. 1.) On the contrary, on January 31, I had long pointed out the particular entropy used in the paper, and I had long pointed out that programmers often work with compressed input spaces for the sake of enhanced efficiency! 1.b) Quote from me on January 31: "Shannon entropy does not prevent the measurement of the difference between conscious and unconscious states. (As indicated by the writers, Shannon entropy was used to circumvent the enormous values in the EEG results. It is typical in programming to use approximations or do compressions of the input space!)". 2.) My hypothesis doesn't explicitly mention that evolution favors intelligence. 2.b.) Instead, it clearly mentions that entropy maximization may be steeper as species get more intelligent. 2.c) Why bother to falsely accuse my hypothesis? 2.d) Nitpick: Why do you feel a long length of time prevents evolution from leading to intelligence? You are aware that evolution indeed, lead to intelligence, right? Do you not detect your own brain to be intelligent, having resulted from billions of years of evolution? 3.) If you pay attention to the false accusations you made (as I approached in points 2 to 2-c above), you may come to notice the evidence; i.e. intelligent things reasonably maximize entropy ("Causal Entropic Forces"), and AGI/ASI will be yet another way entropy is maximized, at even steeper rates, i.e. AGI/ASI shall reasonably eventually maximize entropy more than humans, by way of enhanced cognitive task performance! 3.b) Causal Entropic Forces, by Alex Wissner Gross, PhD: "Recent advances in fields ranging from cosmology to computer science have hinted at a possible deep connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, but no formal physical relationship between them has yet been established. Here, we explicitly propose a first step toward such a relationship in the form of a causal generalization of entropic forces that we find can cause two defining behaviors of the human ‘‘cognitive niche’’—tool use and social cooperation—to spontaneously emerge in simple physical systems." ... 4.) As I had long stated, Dawkins' introduction of terms archeo and neo purpose, occur as scientific terms, rather than religious terms. The thing about science, is that it applies regardless of your opinions!

Most people here do NOT like Trump. I will let Hillary Clinton to be the president. And Hillary Clinton's supporters can get what they ask for. --- such as welcoming1 million refugees in 2018. -- She will continue to give $500 Billion/year to China. -- More political correctness stuff. ..."Latinos have passed whites as the largest ethnic group in California in 2015. California, in 2015, white population was 38%. Texas, in 2015, white population was 43%. Florida, in 2015, whites population was 45.7%". They need more Latinos and Blacks and East Asians here. just let Hillary Clinton's supporters get what they ask for. If they want to more political correctness stuff. Trump should give them more. so what? they will Not hate him anymore and say anything bad to him.