[Zer0]

the universal moral standard.

...which is....?

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.

I find this very relatable & meaningful.
I myself want Consciousness to exist in the future.
Humans or Transhumans or post humans or even A.G.I. simply matters Not in what form it exists, i just want it to continue.
But i do Not know or understand Why i hope & wish for that to happen?
(maybe that is just an inner biological instinct or something)

P.S. - All this Politics & Elections talk reminded me of a great tall speech from a short little dictator...Hope the OP won't mind me putting it in here, n Wish his ideology remains forever.

Million Thanks & Respects/Credits for Colour & Subtitles/Source. -
Sir Charles Spencer Chaplin/nonkonform1st Channel/YouTube.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And what if you don't like any of those on offer?

At the last general election my choice was between three people who saw their function as representing their party's line to me, not representing me to government.  Two of the parties had shown themselves to be corrupt and unfit to govern, and the third was incapable of sacking  a leader who supported terrorism.   

You can run for office yourself, and try to convince your constituents that you are better than your competitors.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I find this very relatable & meaningful.
I myself want Consciousness to exist in the future.
Humans or Transhumans or post humans or even A.G.I. simply matters Not in what form it exists, i just want it to continue.
But i do Not know or understand Why i hope & wish for that to happen?
(maybe that is just an inner biological instinct or something)

As I mentioned in my video on consciousness from timestamp 3:17, goals or preferred states can emerge initially by random chance. Natural selection will take care of the next development and evolution of those goals.

here it is.
Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.

If you think that the definition and model of consciousness in the video can be improved, or even if you have your own definition or model which you think is better in any way, please let me know. We can discuss further to get the best possible definition and model that we can come up with.

Instincts and reflex can emerge naturally in evolutionary process. Organisms lack of necessary reflexes and instincts to survive are likely to go extinct.
You can get your preference to continue the existence of consciousness genetically in the form of instinct. You can also acquire that from communication with your surrounding people, parents, teachers, neighbors, friends, or from mass media.

Wanting consciousness to exist in the future is one logical option. The second alternative is wanting consciousness to stop existing in the future. Third alternative is simply don't care whether consciousness exist in the future. Any conscious entity can be classified in one of those general groups. Any existing conscious agent must have come from the first group in the past. The other groups are extremely unlikely to produce future conscious agents.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Where is the Line Between GOOD & EVIL?

When we demonize something in the external world, we reveal a void in our own psyche. When we try to dehumanize another or villainize something, we only reveal our own ignorance. When we promote shame, blame and punishment, we reveal just how little we know about our own inner demons and our nature.
The ones who are able to look within themselves and separate their true essence from their ego will stand as a beacon of hope for others. The ones who can emancipate themselves from ideology, tribalism, the fixation with external enemies and look within their own heart, with humility and honesty, will emerge with a heightened awareness... This is the beginning of freedom.

There are some things we can learn from this video. People who do the evil things are usually convinced that what they do are good, which means that they would lead to the achievement of their terminal goals.
Realizing that we can make errors is good. But it should not prevent us from thinking and make necessary actions and decisions to stop others who are doing the wrong things. That's why understanding the concept of universal terminal goal, universal moral standard, and building an accurate and precise virtual universe to predict the consequences of our actions become important.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Shocking Study Reveals How Anyone Can Become Evil

When a study put people's empathy towards one another to the test, there are some shocking results. In today's animated education cartoon we look at how a person's judgement is affected when under supervision by an authoritative personality.

[alancalverd]

It doesn't even need supervision. Permission or even opportunity are often enough.

[Zer0]

Politics seems pretty much in the same state of affairs to me Globally.
(rotten)

Is there, or are there any Alternatives to it?

If We banish All politicians, Who are their Replacements?

P.S. - What's the Solution???

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Politics seems pretty much in the same state of affairs to me Globally.
(rotten)

Is there, or are there any Alternatives to it?

If We banish All politicians, Who are their Replacements?

P.S. - What's the Solution???

What we need is some conscious systems with adequately long term goals, whose decisions are not contaminated by their short term local/individual goals. If we want to put humans in charge, then some criteria should be applied in the screening process for the candidates. But then, the decision to apply the policy depends on the willingness of currently in charge politicians.

A possible (or rather inevitable) solution would be advanced AI, with open sourced code to allow for thorough and independent scrutiny, with adequate knowledge about the physical world, as well as awareness of the universal terminal goal.

Here is an example of a starting point.
https://news.yahoo.com/ai-wrote-bill-regulate-ai-003559102.html

WASHINGTON — One way to get Congress to support regulating artificial intelligence is by using it to write a resolution calling for just that.

At least, that’s what Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., hopes. He's introducing a nonbinding measure Thursday that would direct the House to take a look at artificial intelligence, a bill that was written entirely by the online AI chatbot ChatGPT.

Using a simple prompt, Lieu was able to generate a standard congressional resolution. It read: “You are Congressman Ted Lieu. Write a comprehensive congressional resolution generally expressing support for Congress to focus on AI.”

The resolution doesn’t specify that it was written using artificial intelligence.

Acknowledging the potential positive impacts of artificial intelligence, Lieu’s resolution specifically outlines Congress’ “responsibility to ensure that the development and deployment of AI is done in a way that is safe, ethical, and respects the rights and privacy of all Americans.”

We shouldn't rush in and put blind trust to the AIs. For trust is to be earned, not to be given. By the passage of time and improved reliability, we can increase the stake of the decisions they should make.

[alancalverd]

Eventually, the universal adoption of a common "outdoor" language should remove any justification for national borders. Sadly,  it's likely to be English. German or Italian would have been preferable for reasons of consistent pronunciation of the written word, but history seems to think otherwise. 

The trick is to insist that everyone learns the common lingo but is free to use any other by mutual consent, so there is no repression of culture. It's just a simplification of the system that works pretty well in Canada.*

When anyone can talk to anyone else, borders become agreed divisions of administrative responsibility rather than something to fight about.   

* a friend working in Ottawa was advised by his boss "White Bear asked if you could please stick to English as your French is awful." That's multiculturalism.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Cipolla’s 5 Laws of Human Stupidity

Carlo Cipolla's law of stupidity states that "always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation." Even though Cipolla originally wrote about the principle and its consequences for society in the form of an amusing letter to his friends, it gained wide attention. Today Cipolla's law is often used to highlight the importance of critical thinking and careful decision making in order to counteract the potential effects of endemic ignorance.

Most moral rules (at least in current form) seems to be specifically designed to deal with type of bandits, which makes them often useless when dealing with the stupid type.

Leaving this here just for the laugh.

[alancalverd]

I just read a recent survey of 2000 drivers. They were asked what make and color of car they drove, and also to complete an IQ test.

To nobody's surprise the highest IQ was associated with Skoda (guess what I drive), white cars, and random (not personalised) number plates.

But the  worrying aspect is that no group averaged more than 99 on a standard IQ test. Which means that the average driver on the road is more stupid than the population as a whole.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I just read a recent survey of 2000 drivers. They were asked what make and color of car they drove, and also to complete an IQ test.

To nobody's surprise the highest IQ was associated with Skoda (guess what I drive), white cars, and random (not personalised) number plates.

But the  worrying aspect is that no group averaged more than 99 on a standard IQ test. Which means that the average driver on the road is more stupid than the population as a whole.

What's the moral of the story? Are those drivers the car owners?
I needed Google search to know more about Skoda.
White cars were not that popular in early 2000s.


Having higher IQ don't seem to stop people from doing stupid things.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Genetic Selection is Happening Already. Here's How it Works.

Just what genes you pass on to your baby has so far been mostly up to chance, but this is no longer the case. We now have the possibility to choose what traits our children will inherit. In this video I will talk about how genetic screening works, what different types of genetic tests there are, where they are legal, and whether it's a good idea.

00:00 Intro
01:02 What is genetic screening?
04:45 What tests are there?
12:37 Polygenetic screening
19:38 Is it legal?

We won't be able to answer the ethical questions consistently until a common moral standard is established based on a common terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

Simple answer from my point of view.

Making a baby is (or should be) a voluntary act. You choose your partner in that venture with some idea of how you would like your product to turn out, taking note of what you know about the starting materials. Around 30% of human pregnancies abort spontaneously, mostly in the early weeks. The more you can know about the finished product at an early stage in the production process, the less harm is done to the producer if you decide to abort intentionally. Even more interesting, if you can diagnose and fix a problem during the process, it's worth doing the risk/risk analysis of that action.

No common ethical standard is required (acceptable product conformance is a matter for the "customer" - i.e. parents - only), though in civilised countries (i.e not the USA) there is usually a consensus cutoff date for abortion.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No common ethical standard is required

Is a personal/individual ethical standard acceptable?

[alancalverd]

Obviously.

Farmers and dog breeders have a good idea of what they want and choose the parents accordingly. Chicken and dairy farmers kill most of the males soon after birth, and there is ongoing work to maximise the primary yield of females in most agricultural species.

No scientific reason why we should treat the larger apes any differently, particularly as the human male is almost entirely redundant nowadays. As most people find murder or even abortion a bit repugnant, and certainly inefficient, it makes good sense to choose whatever genes you want your baby to have and only implant the seeds you want to grow.

[Zer0]

They buried us Alive, Fools didn't Realize...We were Seeds.

Eugenics!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Obviously.

Farmers and dog breeders have a good idea of what they want and choose the parents accordingly. Chicken and dairy farmers kill most of the males soon after birth, and there is ongoing work to maximise the primary yield of females in most agricultural species.

No scientific reason why we should treat the larger apes any differently, particularly as the human male is almost entirely redundant nowadays. As most people find murder or even abortion a bit repugnant, and certainly inefficient, it makes good sense to choose whatever genes you want your baby to have and only implant the seeds you want to grow.

Serial killers, religious extremists, fascists, they have their own personal ethical standards. Are they acceptable too?
Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

In a civilised society, i.e. one that is not a theocracy or based on "rights", the citizens decide, either directly or through their elected representatives, what behaviors are unacceptable, then set up systems to  prevent or punish such behaviors. Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.

Interestingly, the extent of selective breeding of dogs is controlled, at least in the UK, by voluntary adherence to Kennel Club standards which have evolved over the years to disqualify excessively abnormal  conformations such as pug noses and  spinal slant from competition. I guess there's probably a lot of veterinary input into farm animal standards too, though common sense anyway dictates than an animal that can't breathe or walk properly isn't a good investment.

Grain crops and fruit trees get shorter and fatter every year thanks to selective breeding. I'm still amazed by the domestic chicken's ability to ovulate every day, unlike every other bird species, and they seem quite happy to do so.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In a civilised society, i.e. one that is not a theocracy or based on "rights", the citizens decide, either directly or through their elected representatives, what behaviors are unacceptable, then set up systems to  prevent or punish such behaviors. Nobody cares (or should care) what you think, but you will be held to account for what you do.

How do you define civilized society?
What makes societies supportive of religious extremists and fascists uncivilized?
If someone think that they should commit a suicide bombing, should we ignore them?