thoughtfuhk

@Bender, earlier you had asked: And I had responded: To clarify, "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness" may be thought of in terms of the topic of randomness : For example, Juergen Schmidhuber underlines that it is sensible to describe the universe from the scope of "short programs" (i.e. reasonably, the laws of physics) instead of truly random processes. He then expresses that it is sensible that the cosmos is "pseudorandom", rather than truly random, i.e. the cosmos comprises of processes involving random components, however with overarching non-random structures. (Similar to how evolution concerns random mutations, all under the paradigm of non-random selection.) Likewise, as far as I can detect, Dawkins refers to "a kind of pseudo-purposiveness", to be scientific processes regarding goal directness, minus the teleological baggage, i.e. purposiveness minus theistic nonsense! This is likely why Dawkins introduces "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose" immediately after mentioning the term pseudo-purposiveness. (Perhaps you are confusing Dawkins' use of the word "pseudo" with pseudoscience, and so you persist to falsely express that purpose cannot be in the realm of science, despite contrary evidence!)

1.) Contrary to your false claim, entropy maximization exists. 1.b) Source-i: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_maximization 1.c) Source-ii: Causal Entropic Forces, by Dr. Alex Wissner Gross (Connection between entropy maximization and intelligence. I also linked these in the OP!) 2.) I need not believe in some religious purpose, because purpose may exist in the realm of science, instead of religion/objectivity. In fact, I thought life was purposeless (and I had no issue with that as an atheist for several years), until I later encountered teleonomy some years ago. I then (still as an atheist) adjusted my prior knowledge, and developed a hypothesis regarding human purpose in the realm of science, as seen in the OP. 3.) I need not force Richard Dawkings to describe purpose in the realm of science, because he does that regardless of my input. 4.) Notably, teleonomy does not concern "apologetic nonsense", it concerns science rather than religion. You ought not to confuse those things! 1.) What nonsense of yours. 1.b) Your incomplete quote: 1.c) The entire sentence: 2.) Based on the fact that you omitted the remainder of text above, we now see how you came to misinterpret the clearly expressed words on Wikipedia/teleonomy page: Your quote: 2.b) As you can see, while the page underlined that the latter was largely attributed with religion (aka the divine) or human intervention, the page does not exclude purpose driven processes in nature. (That teleology is attributed with unevidenced divine or human intervention does not delete apparent purposefulness or goal directeness from teleonomy!) In simple words, teleonomy is not merely contrasted with purposefulness, but instead, contrasted with purposefulness as typically expressed in teleology. In fact, the page opens with this description for teleonomy: Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning. So, contrary to your claim, teleonomy does indeed concern goal directness, rather than not! Why bother to lie about the content, or feign understanding, when your lack of comprehension is ironically, quite clearly demonstrated? Why did you lie while saying that teleonomy is not goal directed, when the very initial line on the page clearly expresses it as such? What significance do you garner your comment above signifies? Does "a kind of pseudo-possessiveness" signify the absence of purpose? Why did you think Richard substantiated that phrase, with the terms "archeo-purpose" and "neo-purpose"? I don't detect why you feel that portion of video opposes the OP, or any response of mine thus far. Care to enlighten us? He's late, and trivially demonstrably wrong. In fact, the page opens with this description for teleonomy: "Teleonomy is the quality of apparent purposefulness and of goal-directedness of structures and functions in living organisms brought about by the exercise, augmentation, and, improvement of reasoning." Strange misinterpreted some earlier line, (by ignoring the remainder of a sentence he quoted from the wiki page) and so Strange fell into an error. That error is quite odd, given the very initial sentence on the page, which expresses teleonomy to concern goal directness, rather than not as he falsely claimed!

I don't detect the relevance of your remark above, for I tend to refer to reasonable purpose wrt humans, in the OP. Note: The article used to bolster its points, both the words:  "puposiveness" and "purposefulness", not "puposiveness" instead of "purposefulness" as you falsely claimed. Your opinion is noted. Which portion of the teleonomy description did you extract such a silly opinion? Ironically, your initial remark regarding purposefullness/illusions, is a red herring, and thus I returned the atom response. Notably, I did not say that all things that were apparent were valid. I simply underlined that apparentness should not be confused for illusion, as you had claimed. By extension, I referred to apparent things in the realm of modern science, not archaic/Aristotelian science. The description of purpose used in the OP, is clearly linked in the teleonomy url. (Which you clearly were not familiar with prior to entering this discussion.) It is still clear that you gave the typical religious dismissal of purpose in the realm of science. (i.e. Theists tend to observe purpose merely in the realm of paradigms such as the teleological argument.) I still ponder whether you have spoken English for more than 2 years. Lastly, I urge that you see Dawkins' video, for many of your misconceptions will likely be resolved. (Descriptions at minute 27:36)

1 and 2). See Wikipedia/teleonomy. (Key words to consider: Entropy Maximization, Evolution of general intelligence, teleonomic purpose) Sample of teleonomic purpose wrt evolution: 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. 3) You ought not to conflate apparentness, with illusion. Before the atom was empirically observed, the atom had been "apparent" mathematically. (This does not neccesitate that the atom was "illusory") 4.) You initially mentioned: Your words: "I would argue that a system left on its own, in absence of purpose, is going to evolve towards more entropy." Your words: "But entropy production fundamentally is a purely statistical process, governed by random chance." 4.ii) Thus my earlier response simply underlined that, teleonomic purpose may particularly describe goals in the regime of biological processes, where biological processes may concern entropy maximization and evolution. (This means that purpose is not necessarily separate from evolution, as you had claimed above.) It is clear that you were simply not initially aware of teleonomy, you gave the typical religious rejection of purpose, on some false grounds that randomness in evolution negated purpose. (Teleonomic purpose is compatible with evolution aligned structures, and so teleonomic purpose is consistent with evolution based things.!) Are you religious? 5.) I didn't say that theists ignored purpose; I said instead, that theists reject purpose in a realm governed by randomness/pseudorandomness. This means that theists find purpose to be absent, in scenarios where randomness may be relevant, and this is why theists tend to reject evolution.Is English your first language?

There is a type of purpose that is said to contrast randomness or pseudorandomness in evolution. That purpose is teleological or religious purpose. (See Wikipedia/teleological argument) However, pseudorandomness does not oppose teleononomic purpose. (See Richard Dawkins' work in Wikipedia/teleonomy) Excerpt from Wikipedia/randomness/religion: "If the universe is regarded to have a purpose, then randomness can be seen as impossible. This is one of the rationales for religious opposition to evolution, which states that non-random selection is applied to the results of random genetic variation." This means, a religious person may likely find purpose to be infeasible given religious aversion to pseudorandomness/randomness/evolution.

As far as my awareness of evidence goes, particular teleonomic purposes are maintained as systems evolve towards more entropy production. This means that entropy maximization paradigms may occur as functions on the aforesaid purposes, including processes regarding evolution.

Ten oz' prior words: " Guessing, even educated guessing, is a subjective endeavor. " My earlier response simply underlined that science seeks to be objective, rather than subjective. Alex Wissner cross underlines some connection between entropy maximization and intelligence. In a similar way, I underline a potential connection between entropy maximization and AGI (a type of intelligence, akin to human level). Before the atom was empirically observed, the atom had been "apparent" mathematically. You ought not to conflate apparentness, with illusion. 1.) You are still attached to the teleological argument, and regardless of your opinions, teleonomy concerns non-theistic paradigms, in the realm of science. (There is a difference between science and non-science/non-falsifiable concepts) 2.) Sample of teleonomic 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.

1.) That I refer to human purpose, does not necessarily warrant an exclusion of other potential human level like constructs. (I merely refer to humans, as thus far, humans are demonstrably generally intelligent) 2.) Albeit, in my hypothesis, I had already underlined a sequence of paths entropy maximization, which is reasonably not limited to the scope of this planet!

I am yet to detect any novel data from your expressions; note that I did not express that structures are absent "sub-goals". As an example, the first few points made in a url from the OP describes a cycle such that sub-goals are performed; as humans get smarter and smarter, more and more sub-goals are clearly performed. A quote from url above: "a.) Within that process, work or activities done through several ranges of intelligent behaviour are reasonably ways of contributing to the increase of entropy. (See source)... ..." Crucially the purpose I hypothesize for human life, reasonably succeeds the multifarious sub-goals that humans may have, on the boundary of entropy as described in the OP. Yes, you ought to be able to update your prior beliefs, based on new evidence.

Science may not care about what one likes. As such teleonomic purpose is no "illusion". You ought to be willing to update your prior beliefs, given new evidence! Yes.

Contrarily, science seeks to be objective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(science) Also, teleonomy concerns likelihoods of outcomes regarding organic functions. No where are things specified as indubitably known. The hypothesis didn't say that "Agi was in charge". The hypothesis largely concerns entropy, and entropy is not "supernatural". Well said. Albeot, the teleonomy page had long presented "apparent" purposefulness, rather than some indubitable purpose sequence, so we don't even need to contact Robert's word, beyond teleonomy to quickly see that teleonomy concerns likelihoods.

Ironically, the url you provided above, is consistent with MIT's agi course, and the theoretical foundations of AGI. When I use the term theory, I refer to scientific theory, as opposed to "just a theory". (As an example, the atom was theorized prior to it's observation. Likewise AGI is as such.) Did you even bother to contact the content I presented above? (If you did, you wouldn't have stuck to your silly assumption regarding AGI) Teleonomy occurs in philosophy, biology....complexity theory etc. As long as you recognize that purpose need not be constrained to religious/subjective endeavours, there ought to be no reason why you would select to disregard that the concept pf purpose may occur in the realm of science.

Scientific evidence doesn't care about what "you would say" (aka your unevidenced opinions) AGI Course from Massachusetts Institute of Technology Theoretical Foundations of Artificial General Intelligence etc

There are several AGI theories, within the scientific community. That there are several AGI theories, is not my opinion.

1.) Crucially both "purpose" and "heading" may concern science. 2.) Thus, I don't detect the relevance of your point; for neither of those words especially concerns religion, and both may concern goals/science. 3.) What significance do you feel your response above generates? Or do you feel intention necessitates religion/deities, and cannot exist in the realm of science as per Wikipedia/teleonomy? 4.) It looks like you still feel that intention necessitates religion/deities, and cannot exist in the realm of science as per Wikipedia/teleonomy. 5.) It's time to update your prior knowledge, for purpose/intention/goals/aims need not concern deities/religion/subjectivity, but may concern science/objectivity. 6.) Contrarily, AGI is not yet here empirically (although it does exist theoretically, and scientific theory is real world stuff). 7.) Your opinion is noted.

1.) What about course (in headed definition) or aim (in purpose definition)? 2.) Separately, as per teleonomy, perhaps that dislodged boulder's activity may consist of some purpose-driven context? Teleonomy: "Teleonomy is closely related to concepts of emergence, complexity theory,[16] and self-organizing systems.[17] It has extended beneath biology to be applied in the context of chemistry..."

1.) I was aware of the Omega Point concept. (I discovered that concept while listening to one of Jeurgen Schmidhuber's talks a few years ago) 2.) Apart from the spelling of those words, I don't detect a significant difference in those words, especially as per Wikipedia/teleonomy: a.) headed definition: "having a heading or course." b.) purpose definition: "an intended or desired result; end; aim; goal."

1.) The AGI goal reasonably surpasses the old DNA persistence concept. (i.e. AGI may not necessarily require the reproduction of DNA.) 2.) Nature tends to use things to make other things that access more and more macroscopic states, and as such, humans or DNA based things reasonably shan't be the last generally intelligent things, as AGI (that will likely be brought about by humans) shall likely access more states.

The result of pondering whether human life was purposeless or not, lead me to conceive an early hypothesis, somewhat detailed in some earlier threads: Why is the purpose of human life reasonably to create Artificial General Intelligence? Consciousness causes higher entropy compared to unconscious states in the human brain (Relates to thread above) However, given my hypothesis above, upon discussions, especially atheistic persons tend to confuse teleonomy (purpose in the realm of science/objectivity) for the teleological argument, which is a religious/subjective concept contrary to teleonomy; where my threads concern teleonomy.) Why aren't concepts such as teleonomy more well known? What other hypotheses or theories (based on hard science) are you aware of, concerning where humans may be headed?

Perhaps you think things need deities in order to have a purpose. Let me remind you that: 1. Purpose is not constrained to some deity, as far as definitions go. (See Google definition of purpose) 2. Purpose may mean principle, and there are many principles in science, so I merely hypothesize of yet another principle in science in the OP. 3. Reference-A, Wikipedia/laws of science: "The laws of science, scientific laws, or scientific principles ..." 4. Reference-B, purpose/principle synonym.

From the same section you cited on your Wikipedia/entropy link: "Entropy is a measure of thermal energy per unit temperature that is not available for useful work." Okay, I actually just now noticed you claimed that I misunderstood the research, although I had long ago, responded to a message including your claim on my supposed misunderstanding. Here's a bit more on why your quote above is reasonably false, and why the OP is likely valid, at least contrary to your criticism. (Ironically, reasonably due to your misunderstanding!) When the brain is unconscious, data shows that less "work" is being done. When the brain is conscious, data shows more "work" is being done. As the very section on the very page you cited reveals: Entropy may be observed as a measure of disorder, or measure of inherent loss of usable heat. The more "work" the brain does, the less heat or energy is available for work. This is why the farther away from sleep, and the closer to a conscious state the brain approaches, the higher the value of entropy, or the more the loss of usable heat or energy for "work" or consciousness. Think of entropy like a currency; up until a point, the more work you are permitted to put in, the more entropy you have to "pay up" to your surroundings, in the form of unusable heat or energy. This reasonably means in the unconscious state, you have less unusable energy at your disposal (or more usable energy, or lower entropy), compared to conscious states where you have used up your energy, thus more unusable heat or energy exists. (i.e. higher values of entropy) A statement from the paper: "We find a surprisingly simple result: normal wakeful states are characterised by the greatest number of possible configurations of interactions between brain networks, representing highest entropy values". Another statement from the paper: "Note how during wakefulness the entropy is closer to the maximum of the curve, whereas the deeper the sleep stage, the more distant from the maximum the values are". So, the paper I originally cited along with what I underlined in the OP is reasonable, at least contrary to your criticism, and it is simply likely that you misunderstand the general idea behind entropy. In other words, your quote above regarding entropy and the unconscious brain is "not even wrong"!

Remember, with more work, you've gotta pay out that entropy somehow. This is a basic thing in entropy, as seen on the very Wikipedia page you cite. No they certainly didn't, and that's where my hypothesis came in.

Thread title: "Consciousness causes higher entropy compared to unconscious states in the human brain". The title for this thread aligns with the researchers' words: "We find a surprisingly simple result: normal wakeful states are characterised by the greatest number of possible configurations of interactions between brain networks, representing highest entropy values". And for several years now, I'd been aware of that nao robot "self-awareness" test, that uses deontic calculus as far as I recall. Wrt your "side effect" remark, see the paper by Alex Gross listed in the OP to help you understand why the science alert article (also listed in the OP) used the words "side-effect". A recent interaction with EdEarl triggered a scenario, such that I thought about some errors I may have made prior. (Where I claimed the paper said the contrast of your first statement above) Perhaps the things you say above are valid. (except the correlation remark and your opening statement) Your first statement: "increasing entropy may cause consciousness" (i.e. the process of maximizing entropy may yield more and more intelligence, as explored in the "purpose" thread, and the paper by Mateos et al) may be seen as somewhat equivalent with your second statement "consciousness causes increasing entropy" (i.e. maximizing neuronal interactions may yield higher values of entropy) that is likewise explored in the "purpose" thread, and the paper by Mateos et al. This is reasonably because (as per research) maximizing entropy may be observed to yield increases in intelligence, and eventually the emergence of consciousness (i.e. roughly your 1'st statement), and also, when consciousness emerges, higher values of entropy may be observed (i.e. roughly your second statement). (Note: Although it is perhaps considerable that simpler systems may maximize entropy too, although not to the degree of conscious entities.) In retrospect, this probably means that the phrase "only consciousness causes increasing entropy" may be observed as invalid as far as the papers show (see note above), although no body on the forum has made this claim!

Please read my prior response carefully.

I don't detect why I should do that, especially when: Doing that wouldn't change the reality that Shannon Entropy formalism can reasonably measure the difference in entropy between conscious and unconscious states. There is already an indication of the types of entropy, the paper in question mentions types "Gibbs" and "Shannon Entropy" in the results section. (You clearly missed that based on your inquiry)