Well done Simon, keep on doing this..never stop! Intelligence is made a Human thing.., and is sometimes even thought as being wisdom..mixed with knowledge and then becoming smart. While this all can only be experienced, when our interpretation stops..:-)
Might you consider the term Artificial intelligence pejorative? And those working to bring AI into existence merlely facilitating the Universe's predestined target? What do you consider Time? Can there be existence without it? I have always felt that events fall through time towards fruition. Free will vs determinism...
I think as time goes on, we see that, however brilliant the scientific materialists are, they are hell-bound on seeing the world is a meaningless meandering of nothings. And that is dangerous, because it creates the possibility of a technocratic world. The building of God's based upon technology and ego. Another wrong turn.
I would like to see a debate of your ideas and those of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. I believe such event would not occur very soon as it would be as you say it; a Hermeneutical Argumentation going over the same facts whereas they usually engage in discussion with people who deny scientific facts rather than their interpretation. Still I would like to see such a discussion. These days everything is about the Middle East Crisis, the end of Europe as a culture hence the fall of the West, and this leaves little room to recognize that the focus should be always broader as freedom and rationality is not only about religion but also the discussion of ideas and the building of a better understanding of the universe which in turn erases, destroys, obliterates irrational dogmatic ideas in the minds of the generations to come.
Enjoyed your talk, many thanks. You might be interested in the Beshara School whose education examines questions about the meaning of life from the perspective of the 'unity of being' and that evolution is a process whereby the origin creates a being capable of becoming conscious of itself: th-cam.com/video/hePXUcFuP-I/w-d-xo.html. Also, the biologist Colin Tudge has a lot to say about the cooperative nature of life and the lack of a metaphysic in todays thinking: th-cam.com/video/RPPy5gD-rAI/w-d-xo.html
I have no doubt life is smarter than we are, if by "smarter" we mean an ability to solve a certain set of problems. But life had billions of years and an immense size playground to work things out, by trial and error, as the best evidence suggests. This is not news though. We actually started to utilize the "trial and error" method ourselves, for example in designing most optimal wing form by trying various aerodynamic characteristics. Such method might not be the most effective, but it's still a valid method of producing intelligent systems. So I'm struggling to understand the overall point of the presentation. Is it that the life on Earth is intelligent in its overall form? Ok, under the given definition of "intelligence", it is. So what? Under a certain definition of "God", I'm God, so? I fail to see anything interesting about the definition proposed, and if anything, I find it vague and problematic. For example, one of the properties of "intelligence" is to "make sense", although it can be unconscious !! Well, that's unintuitive, and it's fine, but then Simon needs to clearly explain what is meant by "making sense", not just by saying Michael Faraday made sense of electricity, who, by the way, was conscious (presumably). Does my thermometer make sense of the temperature in the room? Does the bacteria that senses a molecule of sugar make sense of the environment? How about an atom of hydrogen absorbing and reemitting a photon? Is that "making "sense"? Note, you cannot define "making sense" in terms of "intelligence", because it's the intelligence that you're trying to define in terms of "making sense". The latter must be defined independently of the former to avoid circular definition. So what was the overall point?? I also found it goofy and annoying, on the part of the audience, to be giggling and clapping at the cherry picked quotes from scientists about life on Earth. So much for giving the benefit of the doubt to somebody who are considered some the most brilliant minds of our time. For example, regarding L. Krauss's quote (big rare events happen all the time, doesn't mean they are special), I'd like to ask Simon, who seems to be mocking Krauss's quote, does he consider somebody winning a lottery ticket as a "special event"? As well read on Dawkins as he seems to indicate, he should know better that Krauss is right. So what's the mocking all about? Regarding "negative terms" to describe events, that was a bad generalization that assumes everybody feels those terms are negative. But it's not true. It's only a negative narrative to those who want to feel romantic about physical processes in nature. It's the folks who feel disenchanted after learning how rainbows work. And while I have no issue with viewing rainbows and complexity in more than one way ( just like the vase), I would have an issue with drawing unwarranted conclusions from either of the views. Romantic descriptions don't seem to entail anything more than making us feel good and appreciative of the nature. And if THAT is the goal here, I'm all for it.
Very interesting and important ideas and thoughts, arguments, and a great presentation - very funny at times :-) Thank you very much Simon Powell!
Well done Simon, keep on doing this..never stop!
Intelligence is made a Human thing.., and is sometimes even thought as being wisdom..mixed with knowledge and then becoming smart.
While this all can only be experienced, when our interpretation stops..:-)
Simon, this was awesome. I agree with 90% of what you said, is a very mckenna like view of reality, and I like it :)
Great presentation. Will watch the rest after work!
Might you consider the term Artificial intelligence pejorative? And those working to bring AI into existence merlely facilitating the Universe's predestined target? What do you consider Time? Can there be existence without it? I have always felt that events fall through time towards fruition. Free will vs determinism...
I think as time goes on, we see that, however brilliant the scientific materialists are, they are hell-bound on seeing the world is a meaningless meandering of nothings. And that is dangerous, because it creates the possibility of a technocratic world. The building of God's based upon technology and ego. Another wrong turn.
Nice under God's
I would like to see a debate of your ideas and those of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. I believe such event would not occur very soon as it would be as you say it; a Hermeneutical Argumentation going over the same facts whereas they usually engage in discussion with people who deny scientific facts rather than their interpretation. Still I would like to see such a discussion. These days everything is about the Middle East Crisis, the end of Europe as a culture hence the fall of the West, and this leaves little room to recognize that the focus should be always broader as freedom and rationality is not only about religion but also the discussion of ideas and the building of a better understanding of the universe which in turn erases, destroys, obliterates irrational dogmatic ideas in the minds of the generations to come.
Enjoyed your talk, many thanks. You might be interested in the Beshara School whose education examines questions about the meaning of life from the perspective of the 'unity of being' and that evolution is a process whereby the origin creates a being capable of becoming conscious of itself: th-cam.com/video/hePXUcFuP-I/w-d-xo.html. Also, the biologist Colin Tudge has a lot to say about the cooperative nature of life and the lack of a metaphysic in todays thinking: th-cam.com/video/RPPy5gD-rAI/w-d-xo.html
I have no doubt life is smarter than we are, if by "smarter" we mean an ability to solve a certain set of problems. But life had billions of years and an immense size playground to work things out, by trial and error, as the best evidence suggests. This is not news though. We actually started to utilize the "trial and error" method ourselves, for example in designing most optimal wing form by trying various aerodynamic characteristics. Such method might not be the most effective, but it's still a valid method of producing intelligent systems. So I'm struggling to understand the overall point of the presentation. Is it that the life on Earth is intelligent in its overall form? Ok, under the given definition of "intelligence", it is. So what? Under a certain definition of "God", I'm God, so? I fail to see anything interesting about the definition proposed, and if anything, I find it vague and problematic. For example, one of the properties of "intelligence" is to "make sense", although it can be unconscious !! Well, that's unintuitive, and it's fine, but then Simon needs to clearly explain what is meant by "making sense", not just by saying Michael Faraday made sense of electricity, who, by the way, was conscious (presumably). Does my thermometer make sense of the temperature in the room? Does the bacteria that senses a molecule of sugar make sense of the environment? How about an atom of hydrogen absorbing and reemitting a photon? Is that "making "sense"? Note, you cannot define "making sense" in terms of "intelligence", because it's the intelligence that you're trying to define in terms of "making sense". The latter must be defined independently of the former to avoid circular definition. So what was the overall point??
I also found it goofy and annoying, on the part of the audience, to be giggling and clapping at the cherry picked quotes from scientists about life on Earth. So much for giving the benefit of the doubt to somebody who are considered some the most brilliant minds of our time. For example, regarding L. Krauss's quote (big rare events happen all the time, doesn't mean they are special), I'd like to ask Simon, who seems to be mocking Krauss's quote, does he consider somebody winning a lottery ticket as a "special event"? As well read on Dawkins as he seems to indicate, he should know better that Krauss is right. So what's the mocking all about? Regarding "negative terms" to describe events, that was a bad generalization that assumes everybody feels those terms are negative. But it's not true. It's only a negative narrative to those who want to feel romantic about physical processes in nature. It's the folks who feel disenchanted after learning how rainbows work. And while I have no issue with viewing rainbows and complexity in more than one way ( just like the vase), I would have an issue with drawing unwarranted conclusions from either of the views. Romantic descriptions don't seem to entail anything more than making us feel good and appreciative of the nature. And if THAT is the goal here, I'm all for it.
FUCKING NUT CASE !
Of course you are.