0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
if you are prepared to sacrifice yourself for the advancement of a meaningless concept, you won't find me standing next to you for long.
I can't imagine a better alternative because I don't accept that there is or should be a UTG. Abandoning the concept makes decisions a lot easier.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 28/05/2020 03:28:24Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied. Those who take the position of the first row think that there exist a universal terminal goal.Those who take the position of the second row think that there exist some terminal goals, but they vary between different parts of the universe.Those who take the position of the third row think that there exist a universal goal, but they change with time.Those who take the position of the fourth row think that there exist some goals, but none of them are terminal nor universal. Those who take the position of the fifth row think that goals simply don't exist.
Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.
The terminal goal is something you have defined but I don't accept, therefore it is not universal.
If you don't experiment, you won't learn. Some experiments generate regret because we didn't anticipate all the downsides. Who would have thought that Stephenson's Rocket or the Haber-Bosch process would precipitate global disaster?
Do you think that there is something called a goal?
I have no evidence of any goal existing outside of the intentions of an active agent. Since many active agents compete, we observe that their goals are incompatible and therefore there is no evidence of a universal goal.
The simplest example is football. Each team strives to kick the ball into the opponents' goal and defend its own. Your argument is a "god's eye view" that the everyone is trying to kick the ball into a net, but that ignores the fundamental observations that there are two distinct nets, red shirts are not blue shirts, and each team has a goalkeeper whose job is to stop anyone kicking the ball into their net. If you ignore conflicting data, you will reach incorrect conclusions.
o you accept that goals exist, but you reject a universal goal. What's not clear yet is whether you accept that there are terminal goals for each conscious agents.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 20/10/2021 04:09:33o you accept that goals exist, but you reject a universal goal. What's not clear yet is whether you accept that there are terminal goals for each conscious agents.I couldn't possibly tell you. I observe agents doing things, from which I can estimate their immediate goals, but I do not have the presumption to determine their unstated longterm intentions.
If someone doesn't have long term goals, but only has immediate goals, then those goals will no longer matter after they are achieved, or after that someone dies, whichever comes first. They would be meaningless for conscious entities who exist in the future.
Absolutely true. The graveyards are full of people who were once irreplaceable.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cexrECXKUIWhy use reason? We end up with capacity-circularity, which can't be a flaw in an argument, because it's not a property of arguments in themselves. The capacity to reason isn't a premise or a rule, so the argument for its legitimacy need not be premise-circular or rule-circular. This argument is closely related to anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum, which I've mentioned before.
What if I told you that free will is a myth? That we are all just a group of atoms who will react to a particular stimulus in a way that can be predetermined? This is what we call free will; is it real, or just an illusion?
That universal terminal goal is the ultimate reason why we use reason at all, and not become irrationalists, hyper sceptics, or nihilists.
The fact that some people become irrationalists, hypersceptics or nihilists (not to mention fascists or communists) denies the existence of a universal goal.
evil destroys even itself
No evidence so far. If crime didn't pay, nobody would do it.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/10/2021 22:53:06That universal terminal goal is the ultimate reason why we use reason at all, and not become irrationalists, hyper sceptics, or nihilists.The fact that some people become irrationalists, hypersceptics or nihilists (not to mention fascists or communists) denies the existence of a universal goal.