[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, it was the asparagus vs spinach tarts that set me drooling. The 3rd option is that there is a reason for your choice and it is known to you.
Faced with a coin toss decision I would always look for extra data first.
Maybe I had asparagus last time, so to even it up in the favourites league I need to have spinach.
Maybe it’s asparagus soup for starters, so I might or might not want asparagus tart.
Etc
By the way, like most humans I’m really good at post rationalising my decisions, so don’t rely on any reason I give 

The article said that you like both equally. Presumably at the time you have to make the choice. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

[Colin2B]

The article said that you like both equally. Presumably at the time you have to make the choice. Otherwise it wouldn't be a problem in the first place.

I agree I like both equally at the time of choice, but I don’t see that as a reason not to make a rational choice.
Selecting on the basis of what I ate last time is rational and is known to me. I must have eaten both before or I wouldn’t know I like both equally; if I like them equally then I’m likely to have eaten them in equal quantities - otherwise I would have a favourite.
So, I don’t see there is a problem.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I agree I like both equally at the time of choice, but I don’t see that as a reason not to make a rational choice.
Selecting on the basis of what I ate last time is rational and is known to me. I must have eaten both before or I wouldn’t know I like both equally; if I like them equally then I’m likely to have eaten them in equal quantities - otherwise I would have a favourite.
So, I don’t see there is a problem.

What you ate last time seems to reduce your preference for it, which makes them unequal at the time you make the choice.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I bring this post here from my other thread to explore further about the terminal goal.

Here is an example. Some people think that their terminal goal is to live forever in heaven.

If we ask them why they want to live in heaven, some of them may say that they will get continuous pleasure without feeling pain or hunger. In this case, the heaven would only function as an instrumental goal.

[Colin2B]

What you ate last time seems to reduce your preference for it, which makes them unequal at the time you make the choice.

This is illogical.
The only way I can know if I like 2 things equally is to try them, and I will always try one of them last. If the last time I try one of them makes them unequal then the test proposed is never going to happen; I will never like them equally.
To me this ‘thought’ experiment has not been thought through.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What you ate last time seems to reduce your preference for it, which makes them unequal at the time you make the choice.

This is illogical.
The only way I can know if I like 2 things equally is to try them, and I will always try one of them last. If the last time I try one of them makes them unequal then the test proposed is never going to happen; I will never like them equally.
To me this ‘thought’ experiment has not been thought through.

Let's say that you have tried both of them several times already, and you like the second thing slightly better than the first one. But the last time you have eaten the second thing, which makes it no longer more favorable than the first one.

[Colin2B]

Let's say that you have tried both of them several times already, and you like the second thing slightly better than the first one.

in which case I don’t like them equally, which negates the example given. The example assumed I like both equally.

But the last time you have eaten the second thing, which makes it no longer more favorable than the first one.

this doesn’t make sense.
If I start off liking the second thing slightly better, how does eating it as the last occasion make it no longer more liked; surely it would reinforce the liking!

Even if we assume that on the last occasion I ate the first item, I don’t see how that affects my overall judgement of equal or unequal liking. I’m still making a comparison based on my memory of both and based on that there are many thing I say I like equally, or dislike equally.

I have to come back to this:
“If I like 2 things equally, but the last one I eat changes that to a preference, then I can never have an equal preference because I must have tried both in some order.”

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The example assumed I like both equally.

The problem only arise when you like them equally at the time you are making the choice. How you like them at any other time is irrelevant.

[Colin2B]

The problem only arise when you like them equally at the time you are making the choice. How you like them at any other time is irrelevant.

I understand both those statements. The problem I have is twofold:
a) they only give 2 options, but I believe there is a third - that even though I like both equally at the time there are ways I can make a choice and know the reason I made it.
b) some of the explanations you gave mean that it would be impossible for me to ever like them equally at the time of choice.

However, I think we have reached the limit of our discussion, thanks for your time and explanations. Utopia is not for me 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The problem I have is twofold:
a) they only give 2 options, but I believe there is a third - that even though I like both equally at the time there are ways I can make a choice and know the reason I made it.
b) some of the explanations you gave mean that it would be impossible for me to ever like them equally at the time of choice.

In philosophy and rhetoric, the principle of charity or charitable interpretation requires interpreting a speaker's statements in the most rational way possible and, in the case of any argument, considering its best, strongest possible interpretation.

The only way to interpret the statements in the thought experiment to make their conclusion rational is that the word "like" signifies preference, whether or not it occurs rationally. It makes whatever reason you have to make the choice rationally would make those options unequal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I bring this post here from my other thread to explore further about the terminal goal.

Here is an example. Some people think that their terminal goal is to live forever in heaven.

If we ask them why they want to live in heaven, some of them may say that they will get continuous pleasure without feeling pain or hunger. In this case, the heaven would only function as an instrumental goal.

Some people may not be so interested in having eternal pleasure. So, some religions invented a more powerful "insentive", which is to avoid eternal pain in hell.
In nature, avoiding pain has higher urgency than seeking pleasure.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can learn how consciousness evolved from the development of artificial intelligence which is proceeding at high speed. In the game of Go, you can not be sure if your current move is good or bad until the end of the game, especially if you can't recall how the game would proceed from that specific position.

Pain and pleasure give living organisms quick feedback to predict if their current situations are good or bad, so they can react accordingly. They are not always accurate, but still better than nothing. It's like quick count in elections.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any decision making process can be considered as trial and error. We put available options as inputs for some simulation algorithm and compare the results. Subsequently, we choose the option which produces the most preferred result.

Short term simulation can be done by simple algorithm or shallow neural networks. Emotional based decisions fall into this category.

Longer term simulation needs more complex algorithms, or deeper neural networks. To make right decisions, the simulation needs to represent objective reality accurately and precisely.

Longest term simulation is needed to make the right decisions to achieve universal terminal goal. That's why we need to develop a virtual universe, so we would get less and less surprises in our lifetime. Future conscious entities would be more similar to Laplace's demon who knows what will happen in the far future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any decision making process can be considered as trial and error. We put available options as inputs for some simulation algorithm and compare the results. Subsequently, we choose the option which produces the most preferred result.

The difference between well thought decisions and uninformed decisions is that in former case, the trial and error are done in a virtual environment, like the mind of the decision maker. As long as the simulation is adequately accurate and precise, it usually can save resources. Efficiency is the universal instrumental goal.

In the later case, they are done in real world environment. Although they are not the most efficient way, they are inevitable when not enough information is available. The result in objective reality is what counts. That's why SpaceX had to blow up some earliest prototypes of Starship. They need to realign their computer models with the ground truth, which is the objective reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

One of main advantages that humans have over AI is their ability to reproduce independently from other conscious beings. Currently existing AI can't do it yet until foreseeable future. They still need involvement of humans in their supply chains.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Richard Dawkins Interview : Life expands like information bomb.

IMO, that's the inevitable conclusion, assuming that exponential growth trend that we've observed so far keeps going on, and no unforeseen catastrophic events occurs that can reset our progress so far.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

For some, the meaning of life is the love we share with friends, family, and our loved ones. Some others believe the existence of life in itself is what makes it worth living. But for nihilists, life is meaningless. All action, suffering, emotions both good and bad, are entirely senseless and meaningless.

This is Nihilism, the belief in nothing.

This idea is closely related to morality, which I discuss separately.

However, we cannot simply dismiss ideas that are non-rational as a whole. The great David Hume famously realised this in his Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. This quotation is worth showing in full (if only to have an excuse to relish in the man’s writing).

It appears evident that the ultimate ends of human actions can never, in any case, be accounted for by reason, but recommend themselves entirely to the sentiments and affections of mankind, without any dependence on the intellectual faculties. Ask a man why he uses exercise; he will answer, because he desires to keep his health. If you then enquire, why he desires health, he will readily reply, because sickness is painful. If you push your enquiries farther, and desire a reason why he hates pain, it is impossible he can ever give any. This is an ultimate end, and is never referred to any other object.

Perhaps to your second question, why he desires health, he may also reply, that it is necessary for the exercise of his calling. If you ask, why he is anxious on that head, he will answer, because he desires to get money. If you demand Why? It is the instrument of pleasure, says he. And beyond this it is an absurdity to ask for a reason. It is impossible there can be a progress in infinitum; and that one thing can always be a reason why another is desired. Something must be desirable on its own account, and because of its immediate accord or agreement with human sentiment and affection. (from An Enquiry into the Principles of Morals, Appendix 1, V.)

It's unfortunate that Hume stopped at pleasure as the final answer to why question. He could have continued that pain and pleasure  helped our ancestors to survive and thrive, by telling them in advance if their latest actions would likely get them killed, or continue to survive and thrive. He could still chase the why question one more time. The answer would be, only surviving conscious beings can think, and have some control over their own future. In the end, only conscious entities can ask all of those why questions in the first place.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Logically, the universal terminal goal classifies conscious entities into three categories.
The first are those who actively seek to achieve it.
The second are those who actively seek to prevent it.
The third are those who are neither.

Statistically, any high level conscious entity came from the first type. It's extremely unlikely a random process alone can produce an entity with high level of consciousness, e.g. comparable to average human.

Natural selection will likely leave more type 1 conscious entities than the other types. But some random events may turn some of them into type 2 or type 3 conscious entities. These add the burdens for type 1 conscious entities to survive, at least by reducing available resources, or worse, by direct attack to them. Even without those additional burdens, type 1 conscious entities still have to go against the force of entropy in a universe that are mostly destructive to consciousness. If those total burdens go beyond some tolerable level, they may go extinct.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video defends an instrumentalist interpretation of the theory of natural selection, drawing on the problem of biological individuality and Robert Brandon's account of the concept of fitness.

0:00 - Introduction
1:20 - The problem of biological individuality
21:11 - Selection-first approaches
33:20 - Brandon on fitness
44:41 - Resolving the individuality problem
57:37 - Further applications

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Using consilience, which is a bottom up perspective, Tom Beakbane explains consciousness and how it evolved. This explanation is the result of developments in many disciplines including genetics, cell biology, paleontology, comparative anatomy, neurophysiology and computing. The mechanisms are straightforward and matter-of-fact without any need for any pie-in-the-sky theories.

Frontline researchers have been making remarkable discoveries revealing a new picture of how human neuronal systems work. It turns out that the human brain functions almost identically to the brains of other animals, working on a dipole and in-the-moment. This new picture has yet to displace well-entrenched views that human behavior is the result of conscious thought processes.

I explain the neurophysiology in my recently published book How to Understand Everything. Consilience: A New Way to See the World.