Keep It Real wrote:People are free to "choose" their own purpose(s). Developing AGI may be some people's purpose, but it is rather narcissistic of anybody to claim any one goal to be the universally applicable goal of mankind. I mean you know what they say about opinions...everybody's got one...and everybody's fully entitled to their own.

newolder wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:People are free to "choose" their own purpose(s). Developing AGI may be some people's purpose, but it is rather narcissistic of anybody to claim any one goal to be the universally applicable goal of mankind. I mean you know what they say about opinions...everybody's got one...and everybody's fully entitled to their own.

The claim is not a goal for mankind but a goal for life. If the OP has life = mankind then there's some category error somewhere.

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:People are free to "choose" their own purpose(s). Developing AGI may be some people's purpose, but it is rather narcissistic of anybody to claim any one goal to be the universally applicable goal of mankind. I mean you know what they say about opinions...everybody's got one...and everybody's fully entitled to their own.

The claim is not a goal for mankind but a goal for life. If the OP has life = mankind then there's some category error somewhere.

The OP is referring to human life.

The hypothesis from the OP clearly separates human life from other forms of life.

Keep It Real wrote:Sure you're an atheist _exit?

newolder wrote:

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:People are free to "choose" their own purpose(s). Developing AGI may be some people's purpose, but it is rather narcissistic of anybody to claim any one goal to be the universally applicable goal of mankind. I mean you know what they say about opinions...everybody's got one...and everybody's fully entitled to their own.

The claim is not a goal for mankind but a goal for life. If the OP has life = mankind then there's some category error somewhere.

The OP is referring to human life.

The hypothesis from the OP clearly separates human life from other forms of life.

Then you should change the topic title, viz:
"Some humans have set themselves the goal to create Artificial General Intelligence."

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:
The claim is not a goal for mankind but a goal for life. If the OP has life = mankind then there's some category error somewhere.

The OP is referring to human life.

The hypothesis from the OP clearly separates human life from other forms of life.

Then you should change the topic title, viz:
"Some humans have set themselves the goal to create Artificial General Intelligence."

The title seems to be fine, as per google's definition of life. (One crucial mistake people tend to make is to enter conversations not recognizing that what they remember of a word's meaning, may be narrower than what the word may actually broadly mean!)

Google definition of life: the existence of an individual human being or animal.

Keep It Real wrote:Science is a manmade instrument and so can be designed to be objective. Life on this planet was not designed and so how can one impute objective purpose to it?

newolder wrote:
Then my original question remains unanswered. How do nematode worms contribute to this goal? (Also that definition is way too narrow - go ask the biologists about what is considered life...)

_exit wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Sure you're an atheist _exit?

Yes, what inspired that query?

As far as I can tell, I've merely proposed things scientific in nature, rather than theistic!

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:
Then my original question remains unanswered. How do nematode worms contribute to this goal? (Also that definition is way too narrow - go ask the biologists about what is considered life...)

That query was appropriately answered on page 1, reply 31.

Keep It Real wrote:

_exit wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Sure you're an atheist _exit?

Yes, what inspired that query?

As far as I can tell, I've merely proposed things scientific in nature, rather than theistic!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-science/life-s-purpose-is-to-make-artificial-general-intelligence-t55017-20.html#p2621313

newolder wrote:

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:
Then my original question remains unanswered. How do nematode worms contribute to this goal? (Also that definition is way too narrow - go ask the biologists about what is considered life...)

That query was appropriately answered on page 1, reply 31.

You mentioned something about how some humans make models of other lifeforms to help achieve their AGI goal but nothing about how life in general works towards the goal. So, no, that query was not answered appropriately.

_exit wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

_exit wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:Sure you're an atheist _exit?

Yes, what inspired that query?

As far as I can tell, I've merely proposed things scientific in nature, rather than theistic!

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-science/life-s-purpose-is-to-make-artificial-general-intelligence-t55017-20.html#p2621313

You have some preconceived notions regarding the word purpose, that appear to be outdated/invalid/incomplete.

Please take a look at Wikipedia/teleonomy. (See you in a few hours to a day)

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.

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:
Then my original question remains unanswered. How do nematode worms contribute to this goal? (Also that definition is way too narrow - go ask the biologists about what is considered life...)

That query was appropriately answered on page 1, reply 31.

You mentioned something about how some humans make models of other lifeforms to help achieve their AGI goal but nothing about how life in general works towards the goal. So, no, that query was not answered appropriately.

That the OP refers to human life/goal in the regime of AGI/ASI creation, (while non-human life forms are considered as building blocks towards said goal), does not suddenly warrant that the OP approaches a general topic regarding the purpose of non-human life.

(Although the OP had long cited teleonomy, which describes purpose wrt non-human species.)

Teleonomy is related to programmatic or computational aspects of purpose.

newolder wrote:
The topic title (Life's purpose...) makes no distinction between 'some humans' and other living species.

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:
The topic title (Life's purpose...) makes no distinction between 'some humans' and other living species.

See the OP, talking about the purpose of human life.

Keep It Real wrote:

Are you suggesting that humans have collective consciousness? I think many people reach and stick by different goals arrived at through their individual reasoning processes. Something about everybody having their own opinions again...

Also see my bold.

newolder wrote:

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:
The topic title (Life's purpose...) makes no distinction between 'some humans' and other living species.

See the OP, talking about the purpose of human life.

Then the topic title is the definition of clickbait and I fell for it, this time. I won't be reading any of your topics in future.

BlackBart wrote:

newolder wrote:

_exit wrote:

newolder wrote:
The topic title (Life's purpose...) makes no distinction between 'some humans' and other living species.

See the OP, talking about the purpose of human life.

Then the topic title is the definition of clickbait and I fell for it, this time. I won't be reading any of your topics in future.

"Penge housewife discovers that life's purpose is to make Artificial General Intelligence. Philosophers hate her!!!"