God
Forum Replies Created
-
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 the Lotus Evija but in my design I aimed to unusually minimize surfaces unlike typical supercar design.
Rear area is opened up to be aerodynamic:
Side and front left/right areas are also somewhat open leading into that somewhat open rear:
My 3d model in the OP did not include some details like how the lights look.
Here are some rough illustrations of light placement, done over pictures of the 3d model:
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 most of us with frontal lobes to eventually ponder the “Why” questions. Why am I (we) here? What is my purpose? I ask different questions; How come I am here?, How did it all start? I consider myself fortunate to be able to ask those questions and to be able to make sense of the answers I have discovered. In the long (not that long) run I see no purpose to my life. I do not look for one (anymore) because how I understand (my) reality allows me to see my life as meaningful to myself and to those I share it with. I embrace life because I only have one life. I suspect I have less than 40 years left to live and I am unconcerned with my death. Sometimes I entertain the thought that the Universe created us so that we (who are as much a part of it as the moons of Titan) could explain it to itself as if we are the “self-awareness” of the Universe. But that is just to pass an idle moment waiting in line in Costco :-0 I don’t think there is any “grand purpose” but I am prepared to disturb the Universe as T.S. Eliot would have termed it. My friend once said that I “was put on Earth to annoy Christians” and maybe I will settle for that
- I think Science can describe how species came to be (using evolutionary principle, entropy etc), and also where species perhaps seek to go (using again, evolutionary principle, entropy etc).
- I also think many people are unaware of concepts like teleonomy, which contrasts religious endeavour, i.e. religion does not have monopoly on purpose.
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 argues that the objective of humans is reasonably to trigger a way in which entropy is further maximized in nature. (i.e. by creating things with even more intelligence than humans)
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.
- 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, wrt and as far as AGI creation.
- Although yes, long after AGI is invented, one may garner that the universe may end up absent work or cognitive activity (i.e. some heat death).
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, purpose is too often used to mean “this is how you will comply with my plan, whether you like it or not”.
- The OP represents my hypothesis, so it may turn out to be invalid, and maybe life is purposeless instead.
- Or maybe the objective/purpose of human life may relate to evolution.
- Or maybe the objective/purpose of human life may relate to evolution, entropy and AGI creation as my hypothesis suggests.
- There are other possibilities, and we have many possibilities, until further study is done to eliminate or improve said possibilities.
@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 that has now ultimately led to AI…. But that has NOTHING (I say emphatically) NOTHING to do with entropy….Entropy is a physics term in the field of thermodynamics. I think you’re trying to make a connection where there isn’t one. The field to really study why and how our ability to invent AI really lies within the field of neuroscience. It is our prefrontal cortex that is responsible for our ability to invent AI. It has nothing to do with entropy. And you cannot put a purpose on a physics term, or a frontal lobe, lol…. There is no purpose. You can explain how to came to be what it is today, but that’s really just that – an explanation.
On the contrary:
1. I don’t know why you refer to neuroscience (as if I wasn’t already aware of that) because as an Ai researcher, my own work heavily underlines the need for neuroscience, and also utilizes work from neuroscience (See Reference-A below).
2. Reference-A: See my “Supersymmetric Artificial Neural Network“.
3. I don’t know why you claim to see no connection between entropy and intelligence, especially when my hypothesis utilizes equations from Alex Wissner Gross’ paper, “Causal Entropic forces”. (See Reference-B and Reference-C below)
4. Reference-B: Image Snippet from Gross’ paper:
5. Reference-C: “Causal Entropic Forces“.
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 “purpose” because it is heavily loaded with meaning, including a primordial meaning, a cosmic meaning, a religious meaning and a sense of inevitability. That is…once mankind emerged…it was inevitable that we would create AI (is it?) Claiming that this is inevitable is extreme to say the least, even worse, is giving this goal a sense of finality…that is we have reached “point omega” and what comes after that is either mysterious or unknown or a totally new age for mankind or that our purpose changes. This is a really serious claim that requires an enormous and rigorous multi-volume work with multidisciplinary research, specialisation in multiple fields, years of work and the tedium of difining so many terms, giving examples, discounting others and so on. I don’t think you have properly demonstrated these claims in your article nor do I think anyone could possibly achieve that…and that you should heavily tone down the broad claims you are making and focus much more heavily on AI itself or a subjective theory of “human purpose”. For most modern philosophers, naturalists and no small percentage of scientists…once you use the word “purpose of humans” you’ve totally lost your audience. They roll their eyes, predicting that what will follow is (and almost always is) bunk.
1.) You may be uncomfortable with the word “purpose” (because it is associated with theistic endeavour), but it may mean objective, and science largely concerns objectivity, and objectives occur as described in the OP. (i.e. the objective of entropy maximization, which includes evolutionary events , as described in the OP)
2.) Reference: Purpose definition.
3.) Do you have any actual scientific criticism, wrt the OP?
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 the enterprise of Machine Learning seeks to replicate general intelligence in inorganic form, and general intelligence comprises of particular genes)
2.) In fact, the OP underlined some objective wrt entropy maximization, in relation to evolutionary events. (In other words, without evolution, the OP would have to be rewritten to account for some other way to describe bias towards entropy maximization; this means the OP actually relies on evolutionary events, such as gene persistence, from archaic organic agents all the way up through to future inorganic AGI!)
3.) Separately, here’s a recent speculative remark by Dawkins (2017), where he essentially mentions that human extinction “may not be a bad thing”:
…it might not be a bad thing if we went extinct.
And our civilization, the memory of Shakespeare and Beethoven and Michelangelo persisted in silicon rather than in brains and our form of life. And one could foresee a future time when silicon beings look back on a dawn age when the earth was peopled by soft squishy watery organic beings and who knows that might be better, but we’re really in the science fiction territory now.-
This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by .
-
This reply was modified 8 years, 4 months ago by .
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 extraordinarily sophisticated. Our current forays into the area of AI reflect the cutting edge of tooling, not a step towards some great objective for mankind which you term AGI. What you refer to as a purpose is merely another tool, irrespective of how sophisticated it might be.
1.) You may be uncomfortable with the word “purpose” (because it is associated with theistic endeavour), but it may mean objective, and science largely concerns objectivity, and objectives occur as described in the OP. (i.e. the objective of entropy maximization, which includes evolutionary events , as described in the OP)
2.) In fact “Wikipedia/meaning of life” describes scientific things like abiogenesis, and scientific things are separate and disparate from religion.
Theism thus has no monopoly on the word “purpose”.
3.) Reference A: Purpose definition.
4.) Reference B: Wikipedia/meaning of life .
5.) My hypothesis predicts that nature won’t suddenly stop at humans for the task of optimal entropy maximization, it will go on by finding even more intelligent things, be it modified humans, or non human altogether (i.e. AGI), and so on.
I do not think it is “life’s purpose” as Evolution is not goal orientated
- 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 regime of entropy maximization)
- Furthermore, it’s okay to use the word “purpose” here, theism doesn’t have a monopoly on the word.
- The word purpose, as far as definitions go, does not necessitate some deity.
- In fact, “Wikipedia/Meaning of life” concerns scientific things such as abiogenesis, which is disparate and separate from theistic endeavour.
- Reference: Purpose definition.