PopeBeanie wrote:
@programminggodjordan, a couple years or so ago I was vexed by your reasoning wrt the reason/purpose for accelerating entropy. I still don’t get it. I see no explanation for why this, by itself would be desirable. This would be a good place to insert something I fundamentally believe wrt the future of AI, which is that it will b…

[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
I’m getting over two minutes of just black at 1:21, in two different browsers. Am I missing something?

That was intentional 🙂

In my videos I leave a major portion of background music in after clip is seen. Easy to cut, but I fancy listening to the duration of the music sometimes.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
It looks a bit like Pininfarina’s “Battista” concept car which I like. What is the expected capacity of the powertrain?

On the powertrain comment, I haven’t gotten that far yet. Now the goal is to simply build out a prototype that just moves, but crucially looks exactly as I designed in the 3d programs.

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
It looks a bit like Pininfarina’s “Battista” concept car which I like. What is the expected capacity of the powertrain?

Most supercars have similar profile/design, although I think Dio’s offerings are somewhat unique.

Maybe my design is not as aggressive as the Bugatti Bolide, or as smooth as something like [Read more]

1. In my days off work, I aim to somehow try to get a solar/electric artificial intelligence powered supercar out starting as a prototype. I call the car “Aria Dio”, italian for “Air God”, partially inspired by my own actual name, “God Bennett” and aerodynamic structures.

2. I…[Read more]

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342328687_Why_I_an_atheist_legally_changed_my_name_to_God

Note: If you don’t wish to click the Research Gate Link above, see a screenshot of the 3 points below. (Although the screenshot does not contain the portion of the PDF with proof of the n…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I think people confuse the terms “Purpose” and “Meaning”. I see all life on Earth as random creations. Be it a jellyfish, a beetle or a human,, we are all just “lucky” to be alive given the odds of any one particular member of a species being born in the first place (something Dawkins also mentioned). That leads…

[Read more]

I think there’s a viable alternative to especially the “purposeless” based outlook, with the introduction of a recent concept called “teleonomy”, which is an atheistic/scientific way…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
I just don’t see how the creation of AI fits into any context, other than what’s invented by human beings, or perhaps other biologically evolved intelligent life in the universe.

1. Consider the image in reply #7497 above.

2. Given the reasonable connection between intelligence and entropy maximization, my hypothesis argu…[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
I just don’t see how the creation of AI fits into any context, other than what’s invented by human beings, or perhaps other biologically evolved intelligent life in the universe.

1. I don’t have a hypothesis for what may happen after AGI is created by humans, so I merely hypothesize on what humans’ objective may reasonably be,…

[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
I see a lot of use of words like “purpose” and “objective”, in a way that makes them sound like good things, in spite of the possibility or probability that humans may just die off because of them, ala “that’s just the way it is, folks”. You’re right that the word “purpose” isn’t only owned and deployed by religion. Still, purp…

[Read more]

Bellen wrote:
@programminggodjordan I’m sorry but I don’t see the connection. The explanations just aren’t meshing for me. AI is a human invention. In the same was as we discovered fire, and then discovered the wheel…honestly the invention of the wheel was really IMHO the pivotal point of our evolution as far as being able to invent things…

[Read more]

Zweifel wrote:
Yes – one day AI could regard us in much the same way as we regard algae. (Except we won’t be playing a significant role in the food chain.)

Probably, yes.

Davis wrote:
There is no purpose to life. We are a sack of cells which are obsessively and endlessly replicating their particular “code”. Anything more than that…is secondary…besides the point (including the emergence of emotional creatures, cooperative animals and intelligent mankind). I think you should be extremely careful with the term “p…

[Read more]

Brendan wrote:
On the other hand, if you read The Selfish Gene, you will understand how our genes have their own plans for us 🙂

1.) I don’t detect that Richard Dawkins’ early “Selfish Gene” (1976) article is incompatible with the OP; for Dawkins did not constrain genes to ultimately remain organic. (In fact…[Read more]

Brendan wrote:
Why on earth do you think it’s necessary for life to have a “purpose”? That’s about as sensible an idea as those who ask “why do wasps exist?”. The creating of AI has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our existence or otherwise. Man has been developing tools since prehistory, and these tools have become extraordina…

[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:I get what you are saying about AI and humans. There will certainly be a “merging” with technology. This is already happening in various forms. We are already storing data within DNA and quantum computing at the level of the electron is certainly on the way. I would love to get this as my next tattoo.

Note that as des…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I do not think it is “life’s purpose” as Evolution is not goal orientated

1. Regardless of evolution, there are entropy maximization phenomena, which the OP discusses, and things appear to tend to maximize entropy, especially intelligent things. (i.e. The purpose or reason for things to exist, is in the regim…

[Read more]

PopeBeanie wrote:
Are you telling us what our purpose should be? Is entropy a goal for us to attain on purpose? I don’t see the value in this, other than from a mathematical perspective that merely explains how the universe might come to an end. At the most basic, proven level so far known as fact to us in our tiny corner of this universe, “…

[Read more]

Zweifel wrote:
It’s not at all unreasonable to think that evolution is melding biology with technology. It doesn’t have a purpose, but AI could be the next stage in wherever it’s headed. Human creations, as ghastly as many of them are,  literally come “out of nature” just as much as stars, galaxies, and biotic beings.

• Purpose (as far as def…

[Read more]

I became an atheist several years ago, and for a long while I thought life was purposeless. I am still an atheist today, but two years ago, I discovered that science had something to say about the purpose of human life in particular.

• Science reasonably indicates that the purpose of human life is likely to engineer the creation of Artificial…

[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:
Well done Jordan. I have to admit, most of it is beyond me..

All that’s going on, is that:

1. We want our computer model to guess what some input is saying.
2. That model is a structure of weights, biases and activations, that can hold representations of input in (1). We store these weights and biases in one BIG_MATRIX, and…

[Read more]

“This book is for both ‘kids’, and experts! (This feat was not easy to pull off)

This short book contains what is probably the easiest, most intuitive fun tutorial of how to describe an artificial neural network from scratch. (This short book is a clever and enjoyable yet detailed guide, that doesn’t “dumb down” the neural network liter…[Read more]

If not like Witten, and lack built-in evidence, then thought experiments must be substantiated by keen research/evidence, as much as possible.

Strega wrote:
Isaac Asimov once wrote a short story on this. He had a scene where a super super computer had built a super super super one, until they had a huge (of course, size mattered in those days) computer with a huge ‘On’ switch and television cameras everywhere poised to record the first human GiantComputer interaction. They swi…

[Read more]

Firstly, see the source (containing valid citations): academia source

Secondly, consider that:

(1) I am an atheist.
(2) Beyond atheism, I lack belief in all things, and so I had come to invent a paradigm called ‘non-beliefism’: http://nonbeliefism.com/
(3) Supporting citations and scientific notation may be found in the…[Read more]

Tom Sarbeck wrote:
A noun (atheism) is unavoidably a verb (the act of rejecting….)? Fascinating.

Act can be a noun too: (millisecond google search result for the word act)

Unseen wrote:
“An example is presented here (See the question at the end of the thread’s OP below, for clarity):” I’m not arguing with the Edward Witten, I’m arguing with you. If you find his argument compelling, you must understand it. What is your understanding of what he is saying? (BTW, I have no idea whether or not he deserves to be called…

[Read more]

Dang Martin wrote:
Is there proof that scientists “believe” in science, with belief meaning the same for them as it does with religion?

Yes.

Notably, although scientists tend to highly concern evidence, scientists are also subject to especially that flavour of belief that ignores evidence.

Part A

An example is presented here (See the que…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

If it’s so unavoidable, there should be plenty of examples. I’m waiting.

(1)

Part A

An example is presented here (See the question at the end of the thread’s OP below, for clarity):

Genius Edward Witten, could he help intensify artificial intelligence research?

Part B

Also, many sci…[Read more]

notSimple wrote:
This sort of touches on the periodic discussions over at biologist Jerry Coyne’s blog (whyevolutionistrue) about whether we are fully deterministic or not (Jerry advocates for determinism). I’m comp sci, but not in the AI field. Nonetheless, I am still unconvinced that we are truly approaching artificial intelligence, instead we’…

[Read more]

Artificial Intelligence is unavoidably exceeding humans in cognitive tasks, and some projections observe human level brain power in artificial machines/software by at least 2020 (Wikipedia exascale computing source).

Artificial Intelligence is already solving many of human kind’s…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
We’ve moved past Newton, though, haven’t we, which demonstrates that science doesn’t let current belief keep it from advancing. Are you going somewhere with this?

That we have “moved past” Newton, does not suddenly warrant that science could not advance at a better pace.

There is unavoidable evidence that belief facilitates that…[Read more]

Old:

Newton believed that some region of science was only calculable by God, and avoided said work. That work was later solved by an atheist, Laplace.

New:

Newton believed in absolute time (See wikipedia data), blocking him from considering a more workable theory.

That old text above was contained in a very old text file…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:
1. As with the notion “theory,” “belief” is subject to a special definition when it comes to science. It is a so-called “term of art” in that regard. Unlike faith-based belief, as in religion, scientists belief consists in trusting the best explanation based on empirical evidence and proofs in terms of repeatable experiments…

[Read more]

Ever wonder why scientists believe in science?

The *FACTS*:
(1)
Belief definition: “To accept as true, especially absent evidence”.
(Google belief definition source)

(2)
Belief tends to facilitate that beings ignore evidence, on the boundary of confirmation bias:
(Cognitive paper on…[Read more]

Paper analysis complete.

Simply, the data is unavoidably, inconclusive, as is expressed in the paper itself:

Paper: “Although religion was an appropriate field of study in which to test our hypotheses, other external sources of control may operate similarly.”

Belle Rose, had you read the paper in its entirety?

If so, why did you avoid…[Read more]

Belle Rose: “No…belief is actually good for your brain….Multiple studies show this.

I had searched for a little while, and I am still unable to find scientific data showing belief being “good for the brain”.
Anyway, I had long found data showing belief’s science opposing nature:

(1)
“Half of People Believe Fake Fac…[Read more]

caseydorman: “To modify the concept of god beyond what is captured by known religions, so that it becomes some natural force that is, in principle, describable by mathematical or scientific terms, is to remove the concept of god from the equation of explanation“.

Not necessarily.

Recall that mankind did not always have modern science; for…[Read more]

Kyrani: “All of natural world science can’t tell me anything”

Why do you then proceed to use multiple products of science, including computers, and the internet?

Why Kyrani?

Hello atheists, I am ‘atheisting‘ daily here.
Belief in nonsense/religion is toxic, but also, it appears that the very concept of belief is unavoidably toxic:

(1) Belief can include non science, while science cannot.

(2) “..that flat earthers exist, (i.e. beliefs in supposedly flat earth) does not disregard gravitational theory, and that…

[Read more]

For example, astronomy once included mythical components.

In a similar way, God concept can be scientifically redefined, such that mythical components are purged:

Shameless plug:

Amazon: “Scientific redefinition of God, by an atheist” (free for…[Read more]