0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't know if it's just me, but IMO, you need to learn more about logic if you want to contribute to society. Perhaps Venn's diagram is a good starting point.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 30/01/2024 06:18:55I don't know if it's just me, but IMO, you need to learn more about logic if you want to contribute to society. Perhaps Venn's diagram is a good starting point.I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.I'm asking for your help. Please point out the universal goal and universal moral standard that you said are in post 1749.
A universal moral standard must be based on the achievement of universal terminal goal.
The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.
Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism. Which one describes you best?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 29/01/2024 02:40:05Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism. Which one describes you best?Who we? Why does it matter?
If you just apply my everyday moral tests (would you do it to your nearest and dearest? would you be happy if I did it to you? ) to everyday actions we can live a happy life and pursue our own goals, thus adding to the knowledge and happiness of others (apart from priests, politicians and philosophers, of course).
The exceptions you've already acknowledged show that your rules are not universal.
Any conscious entity who can understand the concept of their own consciousness.
Can a nihilist follow your rules?Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?Can future AGI follow your rules?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2024 12:09:36Can a nihilist follow your rules?Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?Can future AGI follow your rules?They can, and if they choose not to, they are acting immorally. Just like the Highway Code, the Laws of Cricket, and any other set of rules. The only universal rule that cannot be broken is ΔS > 0.
every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.
Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.
Approximately 700,000 people kill themselves in a year. These people do not "want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future".There are almost one million exceptions each year to your universal goal, therefore by YOUR OWN criteria it clearly is NOT a universal goal.
There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.
I actually can give you a goal that has no exceptions. The terminal goal of all sentient entities is death. Ta-da.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 01/02/2024 22:41:52There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.Yes, these are many of the exceptions to your universal goal.
What is the purpose of life?That one's fairly obvious. The purpose of life is to hydrogenate Carbon Dioxide. Methane has a higher entropy than CO2 but there is no simple chemical reaction that will take CO2 to methane without passing through a lower entropy intermediate stage. Life seems to be an efficient way for the universe to get to CH4 from CO2.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 31/01/2024 21:54:03Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.In my previous post, I've described the differences and similarities between standards and rules. Standards are aimed at consistency, while rules are aimed at practicality. Standards are more generally applicable. In most cases, good rules produce the same output calculations as standards, while using less computational resources, including time and energy. But in cases where they're known to have different results, we should follow the standards. While in cases where the results of calculated output by standards are not known due to incomplete information or time constrain, we can use the rules.