_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.

_exit wrote:Also, as far as we can see, humans are things with quite profound general intelligence (See Wikipedia Neuroscience), so we base AGI's research goal on that outcome, although we still refer to other intelligences on the way to human like outcome.

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

Thommo wrote:

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

9/10. Should have started with the word "This".

Otherwise hilarious.

Thommo wrote:Enough about that. I do hear Penge is lovely this time of year though.

Thommo wrote:Enough about that. I do hear Penge is lovely this time of year though.

Cito di Pense wrote:

_exit wrote:Also, as far as we can see, humans are things with quite profound general intelligence (See Wikipedia Neuroscience), so we base AGI's research goal on that outcome, although we still refer to other intelligences on the way to human like outcome.

Don't ever forget (and you can bet I won't let you!) that humans are the ones defining or evaluating what 'profound' and 'intelligence' denote. You'd have to stipulate that humans are already intelligent enough to define those words rigorously, rather than philosophically. See also, purpose and teleonomy. If all you have is an argument made by (only some) humans, the arrogance of the thread title does not escape me.

scott1328 wrote:We should ask a mod to change the topic of this thread to what Newolder suggested, since the original poster has "clarified" the intent was not merely to be click-bait, but rather stipulated that his/her own intention was restricted to a conversation about human endeavours.

Suggested title a la Newolder: "Some humans have set themselves the goal to create Artificial General Intelligence."

_exit wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

_exit wrote:Also, as far as we can see, humans are things with quite profound general intelligence (See Wikipedia Neuroscience), so we base AGI's research goal on that outcome, although we still refer to other intelligences on the way to human like outcome.

Don't ever forget (and you can bet I won't let you!) that humans are the ones defining or evaluating what 'profound' and 'intelligence' denote. You'd have to stipulate that humans are already intelligent enough to define those words rigorously, rather than philosophically. See also, purpose and teleonomy. If all you have is an argument made by (only some) humans, the arrogance of the thread title does not escape me.

Recall that the hypothesis occurs on science, the best tool human has to objectively describe the cosmos.

Are you saying I am "ignorant" to be relying on science? That reminds me of theistic behaviour!

Cito di Pense 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.

Don't even start, _exit. All your nattering about teleonomy (especially the Wikipedia article) only gets to apparent purpose, something that @Keep It Real has already directly pointed out to you, and to which you have not responded. Here's to doubting that you will respond when reminded of that problem.

_exit wrote:

Cito di Pense 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.

Don't even start, _exit. All your nattering about teleonomy (especially the Wikipedia article) only gets to apparent purpose, something that @Keep It Real has already directly pointed out to you, and to which you have not responded. Here's to doubting that you will respond when reminded of that problem.

I had long began.

The OP had long specified that life's (human) purpose is reasonably to create AGI. (Did you actually read the Op?)

_exit wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Except that it does, your blind dismissal notwithstanding.
Even if we ignore that intelligent life isn't the norm, that still doesn't mean life has an objective much less to create intelligence.

Looks like you like to blindly accuse your interlocutors of ignorance.
Your link doesn't refute, but rather admits the fact that teleonomy relies on making an is (intelligent life exists) into an ought (therefore intelligence is the objective of life).

There is no significant distinstion. Both cases confuse a perception of purpose with the existence of a purpose.

Stop blindly acccusing your interlocutors of ignorance. It only serves to demonstrate dishonesty on your part.
If anything it is you that fails to understand that the map is not the terrain.

On the contrary, one (the teleological argument) concerns subjectivity/deities/theism. The other (teleonomy) concerns science/objectivity.

Science is something used to construct things like computers (upon which you typed your message), and seeks to be objective.

_exit wrote:
It is clear by now that you entered this discourse, with the preconceived notion that purpose was merely subjective.

_exit wrote: As a result your responses ignore that purpose may be in the realm of objectivity/science.

_exit wrote:

Cito di Pense 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.

Don't even start, _exit. All your nattering about teleonomy (especially the Wikipedia article) only gets to apparent purpose, something that @Keep It Real has already directly pointed out to you, and to which you have not responded. Here's to doubting that you will respond when reminded of that problem.

I had long began.

The OP had long specified that life's (human) purpose is reasonably to create AGI. (Did you actually read the Op?)

_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!)

_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)

Keep It Real wrote:

_exit wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:

_exit wrote:

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)

Or a few minutes. First sentence.

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.

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

Also see my bold.

_exit wrote:

scott1328 wrote:We should ask a mod to change the topic of this thread to what Newolder suggested, since the original poster has "clarified" the intent was not merely to be click-bait, but rather stipulated that his/her own intention was restricted to a conversation about human endeavours.

Suggested title a la Newolder: "Some humans have set themselves the goal to create Artificial General Intelligence."

The title is fine because:

1.) Life may describe humans.