Life's purpose is to create Artificial General Intelligence [WRONG]

[thoughtfuhk]

1.a) Life's purpose is reasonably to do optimization.

• 1.b) Reference I: "Dissipative Adaptation", Jeremy England.
• 1.c) Reference II: Wikipedia/Laws of thermodynamics.

2.a) Artificial General intelligence (AGI), will probably arise in one decade or more, and they shall probably be better optimizers than humans.

• 2.b) Reference III: Kurzweil's law of accelerating returns: https://youtu.be/JiXVMZTyZRw?t=646
• 2.c) Reference IV: Demis Hassabis' prediction: https://youtu.be/rbsqaJwpu6A?t=918

2.d) In fact AGI is often referred to as the last invention mankind need ever make: https://youtube.com/watch?v=9snY7lhJA4c)

3) Thus, our purpose as a species is reasonably to focus on AGI development.
 

 

Some benefits of AGI may be:

I) Solve many problems, including aging, death, etc.

• Reference A: For eg, ai can already do this: "Self-taught artificial intelligence beats doctors at predicting heart attacks" http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/self-taught-artificial-intelligence-beats-doctors-predicting-heart-attacks

II) AGI may be used to help to find a unified theory of everything in physics!

• Reference B: For eg, ai can already do this: "AI learns and recreates Nobel-winning physics experiment" https://techcrunch.com/2016/05/16/ai-learns-and-recreates-nobel-winning-physics-experiment/  

III) Enable a new step in the evolutionary landscape; i.e. general intelligence that's not limited to human brain power, where humans may perhaps no longer be required to exist because smarter, stronger artificial sentient things would instead thrive.

• Reference C: Richard Dawkins, "Big Think" Interview: https://youtu.be/SM__RSJXeHA?t=154

[EdEarl]

Since your hypothesis cannot be refuted or confirmed, I believe it is philosophy rather than science.

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Since your hypothesis cannot be refuted or confirmed, I believe it is philosophy rather than science.

Indeed, the future is by no means scientific, however confident you are; "there's many a slip twixt cup and lip".

Science is essentially a study of the past.

Edited January 3, 2018 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, the future is by no means scientific, however confident you are; "there's many a slip twixt cup and lip".

Science is essentially a study of the past.

As opposed to things like astrology which claim to study the future but are really just made-up shit.

I'm not sure if Ed is  flattering the OP or insulting philosophy when he says "I believe it is philosophy rather than science."

"

[dimreepr]

50 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

As opposed to things like astrology which claim to study the future but are really just made-up shit.

"

 

Science studies the past then makes a prediction, but only the past confirmes or denies what we know.

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

I'm not sure if Ed is  flattering the OP or insulting philosophy when he says "I believe it is philosophy rather than science."

1

Who knows, but I'd like to think we can agree...

[thoughtfuhk]

21 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Since your hypothesis cannot be refuted or confirmed, I believe it is philosophy rather than science.

Why do you say that?

 

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Why do you say that?

 

Well, what evidence would prove you wrong?

[thoughtfuhk]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

Well, what evidence would prove you wrong?

1. One would reasonably need to show that optimization is not a crucial evolutionary component/goal. Such evidence would be contrary to evidence seen in 1.b. and 1.c in the OP.
2. Apart from that, science permits the existence of general artificial intelligence, much like how the atom was conceived prior to empirical observation.

 

[EdEarl]

19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

As opposed to things like astrology which claim to study the future but are really just made-up shit.

I'm not sure if Ed is  flattering the OP or insulting philosophy when he says "I believe it is philosophy rather than science."

"

I'll confess to insulting philosophy I should have known it would object.

[Strange]

10 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. One would reasonably need to show that optimization is not a crucial evolutionary component/goal. Such evidence would be contrary to evidence seen in 1.b. and 1.c in the OP.

1. Your first reference (which is just one persons opinion anyway, rather than any scientific results) only mentions optimisation in passing and appears to refute your claim: “A bird is not a global optimum for flying,” 

2. Your second reference has nothing to do with evolution or optimisation.

3. I asked what would disprove your idea.

If there is nothing that would change your mind (and, based on the above, it isn't based on any evidence to start with) then it isn't science.

It could be philosophy, but it doesn't have the level of logical rigour required. For example, there is no apparent connection between your point1 and 2. You leap from an (unsupported) assertion about evolution to a unconnected claim about intelligence. And as that is a prediction about the future, it has zero evidential value.

 

The "goal" of evolution is not optimisation, exception the sense that those organisms which have the best fit to the environment are most likely to survive. This does not necessarily require intelligent. The majority of organisms do not have any intelligence.

[Country Boy]

The purpose of life is to produce more gametes.

[thoughtfuhk]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

1. Your first reference (which is just one persons opinion anyway, rather than any scientific results) only mentions optimisation in passing and appears to refute your claim: “A bird is not a global optimum for flying,” 

2. Your second reference has nothing to do with evolution or optimisation.

3. I asked what would disprove your idea.

If there is nothing that would change your mind (and, based on the above, it isn't based on any evidence to start with) then it isn't science.

It could be philosophy, but it doesn't have the level of logical rigour required. For example, there is no apparent connection between your point1 and 2. You leap from an (unsupported) assertion about evolution to a unconnected claim about intelligence. And as that is a prediction about the future, it has zero evidential value.

 

The "goal" of evolution is not optimisation, exception the sense that those organisms which have the best fit to the environment are most likely to survive. This does not necessarily require intelligent. The majority of organisms do not have any intelligence.

1.a) The depth of Jeremy England's work exceeds your opinionated criticism; his work constitutes empirical results from initial experiments, unlike your evidence-absent remarks.

1.b) That "a bird is not the global optimum for flying", does not suddenly remove that some process is being optimized.

2) Thermodynamics does have something to do with optimization; as a scientist one should be wary of the words: "x" has nothing to do with "y".

3) Reference A: Statistical Inference and String Theory

4) I didn't haphazardly introduce point 2, after point 1. You are ignoring a crucial reality; artificial general intelligence has the theoretical capacity to be a meta solution to many problem spaces. This means that AGI will be able to exceed humans in many cognitive tasks.

Notably, evolution has not yielded science creating bacteria; humans are the only species that has demonstrated the ability to invent science and technology, which yields the ability to manipulate many other species of lesser intelligence.

5) You are still yet to show that life's goal does not non trivially constitute optimization.

6) Also, could you please list an example of an organism that supposedly lacks intelligence?

Edited January 4, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

33 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. The depth of Jeremy England's work exceeds your opinionated criticism; his work constitutes empirical results from initial experiments, unlike your evidence-absent remarks.

I'm sure. But the article you cited doesn't appear to support your claim.

Perhaps you need to provide a reference to something (ideally a published paper) that does?

34 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2. Thermodynamics does have something to do with optimization

Again, the article you cited said nothing about optimisation. Also, nothing to do with life's purpose.

Perhaps you need to explain the relevance?

35 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

3. Reference A: Statistical Inference and String Theory

Can you explain how this is relevant to evolution, optimisation and/or the purpose of life?

36 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

4. I didn't haphazardly introduce point 2, after point 1. You are ignoring a crucial reality; artificial general intelligence has the theoretical capacity to be a meta solution to many problem spaces. This means that AGI will be able to exceed humans in many cognitive tasks.

But that has nothing to do with evolution or the purpose of life. Perhaps you could explain the connection?

37 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

5. You are still yet to show that life's goal does not non trivially constitute optimization.

Not really my job to do that. Especially as you haven't yet provided any evidence that it does.

I simply asked what would disprove your hypothesis. You still haven't answered that.

38 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

6. Also, could you please list an example of an organism that supposedly lacks intelligence?

A tree. Or yeast. But if you are going to extend the meaning of intelligence to include those then you probably need to define what you think the word "intelligence" means.

[thoughtfuhk]

4 hours ago, Strange said:

I'm sure. But the article you cited doesn't appear to support your claim.

Perhaps you need to provide a reference to something (ideally a published paper) that does?

Again, the article you cited said nothing about optimisation. Also, nothing to do with life's purpose.

1.a) Again, I repeat that the words from the article regarding the "birds not being the global optimum of flight" do not warrant that some processes aren't being optimized.

1.b) That a process does not fall in some global optimum, does not mean that a process is not occurring within a set of multiple candidate solutions i.e. something like local optimum (as one may derive from papers by Jeremy et al, or other work)! 

2. Reference A:  "Minimum Energetic Cost to Maintain a Target Nonequilibrium State."

3. Reference B: "Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly."

Quote

Perhaps you need to explain the relevance?

Can you explain how this is relevant to evolution, optimization and/or the purpose of life?

But that has nothing to do with evolution or the purpose of life. Perhaps you could explain the connection?

4. I advised you to be wary of your wording style:  "y" has nothing to do with "x", but you continue to ignore that advise, strangely.

5. As one may derive from papers by Jeremy et al, artificial general intelligence shall reasonably occur as a better way in solution space, compared to humans. (So humans are in that solution space, but AGI or ASI shall be entities that are better candidates for cognitive tasks)

6. We already see narrow (although more and more general) Ai exceeding humans in several individual cognitive tasks. AGI or ASI shall reasonably outperform humans in most or all cognitive tasks!

Quote

Not really my job to do that. Especially as you haven't yet provided any evidence that it does.

I simply asked what would disprove your hypothesis. You still haven't answered that.

A tree. Or yeast. But if you are going to extend the meaning of intelligence to include those then you probably need to define what you think the word "intelligence" means.

Refer to items 1 to 6 above.

Separately, I already mentioned that to disregard my optimization summary, you could for example show that evolution does not non-trivially concern optimization. (Although I doubt you could, given that evidence supports my optimization summary)

Edited January 5, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[John Cuthber]

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

Thermodynamics does have something to do with optimization; as a scientist one should be wary of the words: "x" has nothing to do with "y".

I could use a laugh. Please show the evidence that thermodynamics  and optimisation are linked in this case.

"as a scientist one should be wary of the words: "x" has nothing to do with "y"." or vice versa.

[thoughtfuhk]

45 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

I could use a laugh. Please show the evidence that thermodynamics  and optimisation are linked in this case.

"as a scientist one should be wary of the words: "x" has nothing to do with "y"." or vice versa.

Laughing won't abolish evidence. See items 1 to 3 in my response above.

And I was not the person who invoked that some thing had nothing to do with some other thing. I was advising another person here to be careful of using phrases like "y has nothing to do with x".

Edited January 5, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

7 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1.a) Again, I repeat that the words from the article regarding the "birds not being the global optimum of flight" do not warrant that some processes aren't being optimized.

But you cited that article in support of your claim that evolution is an optimising process. I am just pointing out that the article does not appear to support that claim.

If you think it does, please quote the specific part(s) that support your claim.

Quote

1.b) That a process does not fall in some global optimum, does not mean that a process is not occurring within a set of multiple candidate solutions i.e. something like local optimum (as one may derive from papers by Jeremy et al, or other work)! 

Does "something like a local optimum" mean you are using this as an analogy? Or can you actually provide a reference from these "papers by Jeremy et al, or other work" that supports your position?

Quote

2. Reference A:  "Minimum Energetic Cost to Maintain a Target Nonequilibrium State."3. Reference B: "Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly."

Can you please explain the relevance or significance of these papers to your argument?

Quote

4. I advised you to be wary of your wording style:  "y" has nothing to do with "x", but you continue to ignore that advise, strangely.

Well, you still haven't explained the connection.

Quote

5. As one may derive from papers by Jeremy et al, artificial general intelligence shall reasonably occur as a better way in solution space, compared to humans. (So humans are in that solution space, but AGI or ASI shall be entities that are better candidates for cognitive tasks)

So can you provide references towhees papers?

Quote

6. We already see narrow (although more and more general) Ai exceeding humans in several individual cognitive tasks. AGI or ASI shall reasonably outperform humans in most or all cognitive tasks!

But you still haven't explained the relevance of this to evolution or, more importantly, the "purpose of life".

Quote

Separately, I already mentioned that to disregard my optimization summary, you could for example show that evolution does not non-trivially concern optimization. (Although I doubt you could, given that evidence supports my optimization summary)

I am glad you are not going to try and argue that trees or yeast are intelligent. That really would take us into a bizarre rabbit hole.

However, you haven't yet shown that evolution concerns optimisation (you claim it does and you claim there are papers that support this view but you haven't yet provided evidence of either) so you appear to be undermining your own argument.

Even if evolution can be seen as a local optimisation (and I am not arguing against that) I still don't see the connection between that and intelligence. And I don't see the connection between general AI and evolution.

Can I summarise what I think you are saying and then maybe you can correct or fill in the gaps:

1. The purpose of life is optimisation 
2. Evolution does this already
3. General AI will be better at optimisation than evolution
4. Therefore our goal should be to develop general AI to replace evolution.

Is that right?

But optimisation only makes sense in the context of some constraints that have to be optimised for. So, for example, that is why some organisms appear to be unchanged for millions of years: they are already a good fit to their environment.

So what is this AI supposed to be optimising, and what is it supposed to optimise it for? 

[thoughtfuhk]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

But you cited that article in support of your claim that evolution is an optimising process. I am just pointing out that the article does not appear to support that claim.

If you think it does, please quote the specific part(s) that support your claim.

Does "something like a local optimum" mean you are using this as an analogy? Or can you actually provide a reference from these "papers by Jeremy et al, or other work" that supports your position?

Can you please explain the relevance or significance of these papers to your argument?

Well, you still haven't explained the connection.

So can you provide references towhees papers?

But you still haven't explained the relevance of this to evolution or, more importantly, the "purpose of life".

I am glad you are not going to try and argue that trees or yeast are intelligent. That really would take us into a bizarre rabbit hole.

However, you haven't yet shown that evolution concerns optimisation (you claim it does and you claim there are papers that support this view but you haven't yet provided evidence of either) so you appear to be undermining your own argument.

Even if evolution can be seen as a local optimisation (and I am not arguing against that) I still don't see the connection between that and intelligence. And I don't see the connection between general AI and evolution.

Can I summarise what I think you are saying and then maybe you can correct or fill in the gaps:

1. The purpose of life is optimisation 
2. Evolution does this already
3. General AI will be better at optimisation than evolution
4. Therefore our goal should be to develop general AI to replace evolution.

Is that right?

But optimisation only makes sense in the context of some constraints that have to be optimised for. So, for example, that is why some organisms appear to be unchanged for millions of years: they are already a good fit to their environment.

So what is this AI supposed to be optimising, and what is it supposed to optimise it for? 

1. If you claim to not argue against the instance that evolution can be seen as "a local optimization", then it is very odd that you don't yet detect the connection, especially given the OP.

2.a) Humans are entities, that produce a range of intelligent behaviours in evolution that can be observed to optimize cognitive tasks.

2.b) AGI/ASI theoretically occur as yet another class (though non-biological) producing intelligent behaviours, that can be observed to optimize cognitive tasks, even more so that humans.

3) So looking at some range of intelligent behaviours performable by things in nature, AGI/ASI occurs quantitatively as a subsequent step, with the ability to yield human exceeding intelligent behaviours. (Similar to how humans outperformed its predecessors when nature  implemented better "cognitive hardware" in humans)

4) Note that I didn't say that AGI/ASI is life or biological, but we can still observe a range of intelligent behaviours, in which ASI/AGI and humans occur, and conclude that AGI/ASI is a reasonable class/subsequent step in the landscape of intelligent behaviours!

5) By the way, new research on plant intelligence may forever change how you think about plants.

Edited January 5, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

3 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. If you claim to not argue against the instance that evolution can be seen as "a local optimization", then it is very odd that you don't yet detect the connection, especially given the OP.

I am simply pointing out that you have not provided any evidence to support your claim. As you seem to think that there are many papers on this, it should be simple for you t provide a reference.

 

[thoughtfuhk]

12 hours ago, Strange said:

I am simply pointing out that you have not provided any evidence to support your claim. As you seem to think that there are many papers on this, it should be simple for you t provide a reference.

 

1. On the contrary, evidence had long been provided in the OP, in items (1.b) and (1.c).
2. Aside from that, I am pleased you recently detected the connection between AGI, optimization, and evolution.

Edited January 6, 2018 by thoughtfuhk

[Strange]

6 hours ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. On the contrary, evidence had long been provided in the OP, in items (1.b) and (1.c).

Perhaps you can quote the specific sections from the article about Jeremy England that supports your claim. Because I can't see anything and, as I say, the only mention of optimisation contradicts you. It is no use just repeating the claim that is is evidence, when it doesn't appear to be.

Or, maybe better still, reference some science (by England or someone else) that supports you claim.

I would ask the same about the Wikipedia article about thermodynamics which doesn't mention life, evolution or optimisation. So could you explain exactly how it supports your claim.

Quote

Aside from that, I am pleased you recently detected the connection between AGI, optimization, and evolution.

I don't, I'm afraid. I am still waiting for you to provide one.

[thoughtfuhk]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Perhaps you can quote the specific sections from the article about Jeremy England that supports your claim. Because I can't see anything and, as I say, the only mention of optimisation contradicts you. It is no use just repeating the claim that is is evidence, when it doesn't appear to be.

How does that instance of optimization in ("Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly") supposedly contradict the OP?

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Or, maybe better still, reference some science (by England or someone else) that supports you claim.

I would ask the same about the Wikipedia article about thermodynamics which doesn't mention life, evolution or optimisation. So could you explain exactly how it supports your claim.

I don't, I'm afraid. I am still waiting for you to provide one.

That's odd, because you previously mentioned that you could observe the relevance of optimization, wrt to evolution.  (See source)

Anyway, here is a clear summary, with quite important things underlined, emboldened, and blued:

1. Evolution selects increasingly suitable candidates all the time. (optimization also pertains to candidate selection)

2.a) In a range of intelligent behaviours, humans are candidates for optimizing cognitive tasks.

2.b) AGI/ASI is observable as yet another thing in nature (although non-biological), that are also candidates that can theoretically generate better intelligence than humans, thus possessing the ability to better optimize cognitive tasks.

3) Based on (1), (2.a) and (2.b), AGI/ASI is a reasonably non-trivial goal to pursue, much like how nature generated smarter things than Neanderthals or chimpanzees. 

[dimreepr]

23 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. Evolution selects increasingly suitable candidates all the time. (optimization also pertains to candidate selection)

 

This may be the source of your confusion, evolution doesn't select (least of all candidates), evolution doesn't do anything it just explains why (dead things don't get to pass on its genetic material and live things do). 

31 minutes ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2.b) AGI/ASI is observable as yet another thing in nature (although non-biological), that are also candidates that can theoretically generate better intelligence than humans, thus possessing the ability to better optimize cognitive tasks.

3) Based on (1), (2.a) and (2.b), AGI/ASI is a reasonably non-trivial goal to pursue, much like how nature generated smarter things than Neanderthals or chimpanzees. 

It may be a reasonable goal to pursue but it's certainly not "Life's purpose", besides why do you suppose intelligence can or should be optimised? 

5 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

better optimize cognitive tasks.

This is a major sticking point for me, cognition requires understanding, not just processing.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

How does that instance of optimization in ("Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly") supposedly contradict the OP?

That is not what you linked to originally. I was commenting on the article you linked to.

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

That's odd, because you previously mentioned that you could observe the relevance of optimization, wrt to evolution.  (See source)

I can't see where I said that.

But I did point out that you need to specify the constraints that you claim are being optimised for. There is no such thing as just "optimising". 

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

1. Evolution selects increasingly suitable candidates all the time. (optimization also pertains to candidate selection)

As dimreeper says, I'm not sure this is a very accurate characterisation of evolution. Also, in many (nearly all) cases it doesn't relate to intelligence.

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2.a) In a range of intelligent behaviours, humans are candidates for optimizing cognitive tasks.

Not sure what "candidates for optimising cognitive tasks" means. Do you mean that evolution should act on human populations to increase intelligence?

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. Like everything else evolution does, the intelligence of humans reached a level that was useful and, since then, various other evolutionary changes have occurred, driven by local conditions. 

1 hour ago, thoughtfuhk said:

2.b) AGI/ASI is observable as yet another thing in nature (although non-biological), that are also candidates that can theoretically generate better intelligence than humans, thus possessing the ability to better optimize cognitive tasks.

So, ignoring the fact tat this is pure speculation / science-fiction at the moment, what are these cognitive tasks and in what way do they need to be optimized (i.e. what are the constraints)?

And, finally, why do you believe this is "life's purpose"?

Is the purpose of plankton to "optimise cognitive tasks"? Or is it to be a food source for other organisms? Or is it simply to maximise (optimise, if you will) the reproduction of their genes?

[thoughtfuhk]

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This may be the source of your confusion, evolution doesn't select (least of all candidates), evolution doesn't do anything it just explains why (dead things don't get to pass on its genetic material and live things do). 

1. Your response is self--contradictory, as the initial portion of your response entailed a statement that: "evolution doesn't do anything" then you subsequently substantiated that statement with another statement ironically expressing what evolution does.

2. I didn't say evolution "selects least of all candidates". (whatever that means, and you will find no quote or something that sounds like me expressing that)

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

It may be a reasonable goal to pursue but it's certainly not "Life's purpose", besides why do you suppose intelligence can or should be optimised? 

3.a) We already see evidence of artificial intelligence exceeding or equaling humans on many individual cognitive tasks, much like how nature implemented better hardware in humans, compared to neanderthals. 

3.b) Observing the range of cognition, from neanderthals to humans, given the reasonable outcome that AGI/ASI shall exceed humans in cognitive tasks:

•  The construction of AGI/ASI is a profound goal, that may engender a subsequent range of intelligence that exceeds that of humans. (in the same range I underlined at the beginning of this sentence)

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

This is a major sticking point for me, cognition requires understanding, not just processing.

4) Regardless of your feelings on the matter, general intelligence (as far as science goes) is reasonably independent of substrate; i.e. no law of physics limits general intelligence to flesh.

 

14 hours ago, Strange said:

That is not what you linked to originally. I was commenting on the article you linked to.

1. The OP did in fact link to an article, which contained the paper in question. (Scroll down on the article, to see Dissipative Adaptation etc...)

2.a) Again, I repeat that the words from the article regarding the "birds not being the global optimum of flight" do not warrant that some processes aren't being optimized.

3.a) That a process does not fall in some global optimum, does not mean that a process is not occurring within a set of multiple candidate solutions i.e. something like local optimum (as one may derive from papers by Jeremy et al, or other work)! 
 

15 hours ago, Strange said:

I can't see where I said that.

But I did point out that you need to specify the constraints that you claim are being optimised for. There is no such thing as just "optimising". 

4.a) My words: "That's odd, because you previously mentioned that you could observe the relevance of optimization, wrt to evolution.  (See source)"

4.b) A part of your response (from the source above): "Even if evolution can be seen as a local optimization (and I am not arguing against that)."

So, you indeed mentioned that you could observe the relevance of optimization, wrt to evolution.

15 hours ago, Strange said:

As dimreeper says, I'm not sure this is a very accurate characterisation of evolution. Also, in many (nearly all) cases it doesn't relate to intelligence.

5.a) As you'll notice in my responses to dimreeper, he is demonstrably wrong about many components in his response.

5.b) Your claim: "Also, in many (nearly all) cases it doesn't relate to intelligence".

5.b) My response: Contrary to your non-evidenced claim, see this paper: The evolution of intelligence: adaptive specializations versus general process

15 hours ago, Strange said:

Not sure what "candidates for optimising cognitive tasks" means. Do you mean that evolution should act on human populations to increase intelligence?

There doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. Like everything else evolution does, the intelligence of humans reached a level that was useful and, since then, various other evolutionary changes have occurred, driven by local conditions

6.a) It is odd that you mention "there's no evidence".

6.b) It is odd, because you went on to mention that "the intelligence of humans reached a level". 

6.c) That level was reached because humans are candidates for optimizing cognitive tasks, i.e. cognitive tasks were optimized while intelligence grew as time passed.

7) Also, since then, we've still been getting smarter, (supplemented by better and better science/technology), although the amount of information we generate is eluding is more and more daily.

 

15 hours ago, Strange said:

So, ignoring the fact tat this is pure speculation / science-fiction at the moment, what are these cognitive tasks and in what way do they need to be optimized (i.e. what are the constraints)?

8.a) Your words: "So, ignoring the fact tat this is pure speculation / science-fiction at the moment".
8.b) My response:  General intelligence (as far as science goes) is reasonably independent of substrate; i.e. no law of physics limits general intelligence to flesh.

9.a) Your words: "what are these cognitive tasks and in what way do they need to be optimized (i.e. what are the constraints)?"
9.b.) My response: See items 3.a and 3.b in my reply above to dimreeper, in this latest thread.

 

15 hours ago, Strange said:

And, finally, why do you believe this is "life's purpose"?

Is the purpose of plankton to "optimise cognitive tasks"? Or is it to be a food source for other organisms? Or is it simply to maximise (optimise, if you will) the reproduction of their genes?

10.a) See items 3.a and 3.b in my reply above to dimreeper, in this latest thread.
10.b) Notably, this applies reasonably, as far as science goes today, whether or not I state it.