0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
They could be identified by their common traits, such as shape, size, color, sound, smell, or other unique signatures.
It generates necessity to distinguish between good and bad behaviors.
This video kicks off the evolution series by going broad and thinking about why things - including non-living things - exist at all. The first in a series on evolution.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/11/2021 09:57:17This video kicks off the evolution series by going broad and thinking about why things - including non-living things - exist at all. The first in a series on evolution.There are only two possibilities as to why things exist. Either (a) they were created for a purpose by a timeless omnipotent being or (b) they just do. There is no evidence for (a).
Mortal beings don't create stuff - we just reorganise it.
Environmental conditions change from time to time, which may require different traits as possible solutions. So some variations/diversities in the duplicates of a conscious entity are likely to be beneficial in the long run. They give some flexibilities for the group of conscious entities to survive in different possible environmental conditions. A group of exactly the same duplicates of a conscious entity is vulnerable to common mode failures.
I'm sure you've all heard about teenagers and young adults hitting it big with cryptocurrencies. Many of them have been able to turn a few thousand dollars into hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. But like with every money rush, it's often way more lucrative to be the one selling the shovels as opposed to the one mining for gold. One entrepreneur who chose to sell the shovels to crypto traders is Sam Bankman who is the founder of FTX. FTX specializes in offering high-speed trading and leverage options to experienced traders. But, naturally, a lot of retail gamblers have joined the site in hopes of hitting it big. Sam started FTX just a little over two years ago in May of 2019, and it's already made him a deca-billionaire worth $26.5 billion. Aside from FTX, Sam also created the FTX token and is tokenizing popular stocks like Apple. Sam hopes that by making a lot of money, he can donate a lot of money to altruistic purposes. So far, he's donated $25 million, but his goal is in the billions. This video explains the monumental rise of Sam Bankman and how he went from 0 to $26.5 billion in 4 years. Discord Community: https://discord.gg/SJUNWNtTimestamps:0:00 - Selling The Shovels1:03 - Sam Bankman2:22 - Arbitrage Trading4:13 - Crypto Brokerage5:41 - Leveraged Trading8:07 - Sam’s Neutral Stance
"Speculate to accumulate." Speculating on the speculators is a high risk, high gain strategy.
Previously I've described the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal as the morality with the least requirements/necessary assumptions. The minimum requirements are implied by the definitions of each words in the universal terminal goal itself.This can be seen as the basic foundation for other moralities. In other words, other moralities can be aligned with the universal moral standard by adding some conditionals or assumptions that correctly represent objective reality. If those requirements are not met, then they deviate from universal moral standard, hence universally immoral.
Merely adding axioms is not proof.
Police officers give people tickets for speeding or running a stop sign, but there’s another reason that people are getting pulled over: It’s the dirty little secret called the quota system.
The point is mostly off topic. A universal moral standard need not 'exist' if it is a standard for a universe whose existence isn't distinct from its nonexistence. I deny such a standard, but that stance isn't a function of my stance on the existence of things.
Quote from: alancalverd on 18/10/2021 17:13:11I 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. What's your position regarding the universal terminal goal? Which point(s) is/are unacceptable for you?Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 28/05/2020 03:54:46Quote 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.Doing something without thinking about its consequences first is indeed easier. But you are increasing your risk of having regrets. Establishing moral standards and rules are some efforts to minimize regrets.
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.
To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemFrom those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemThere is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?