[Just thinking]

There are some parts of India where a woman can have many husbands so they can share economic burden.

My wife said no to many wives so I say no to many husbands. Yes, there are many ways and many customs.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I defined goal as preferred conditions in the future. And the future is preferably better than the present. This idea doesn't seem to be controversial. But nonetheless, someone may find a way to criticize it.
The preference for improvement is inherently anti status quo. A tool to eliminate status quo bias is called reversal test.

The reversal test is a heuristic designed to spot and eliminate status quo bias, an emotional bias irrationally favouring the current state of affairs. The test is applicable to the evaluation of any decision involving a potential deviation from the status quo along some continuous dimension. The reversal test was introduced in the context of the bioethics of human enhancement by Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reversal_test

Bostrom and Ord introduced the reversal test to provide an answer to the question of how one can, given that humans might suffer from irrational status quo bias, distinguish between valid criticisms of proposed increase in some human trait and criticisms merely motivated by resistance to change.[1] The reversal test attempts to do this by asking whether it would be a good thing if the trait was decreased: An example given is that if someone objects that an increase in intelligence would be a bad thing due to more dangerous weapons being made etc., the objector to that position would then ask "Shouldn't we decrease intelligence then?"

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's the criticism.

Alfred Nordmann argues that the reversal test merely erects a straw-man argument in favour of enhancement. He claims that the tests are limited to approaches that are consequentialist and deontological. He adds that one cannot view humans as sets of parameters that can be optimized separately or without regard to their history.[4]

Christian Weidemann argues that the double reversal test can muddy the water; guaranteeing and weighing transition costs versus benefits might be the relevant practical ethical question for much human enhancement analysis.[5]

My answer to the criticism above is that any plan is inherently consequential. We make decisions based on the consequences of each available options, and weigh in their cost and benefit.
Granted, any improvement may have side effects. That's why we need ingenuity to maximize the improvement while minimising the side effects. We've done it with vaccine. We're also getting better with gene therapy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It all falls back to anthropic principle. Someone is willing to change, someone else does not. At present, no change might be necessary to survive. But future condition will be different than present.
So anyone still exist in the distant future must come from someone who survive various conditions from the past to that point in the future. They don't have to be the same individuals as those who currently existing ones. But they are likely products of continuous improvement of conscious entities before them. It's extremely unlikely that they will come up spontaneously from a random event.

[Just thinking]

They don't have to be the same individuals as those who currently existing ones. But they are likely products of continuous improvement of conscious entities before them. It's extremely unlikely that they will come up spontaneously from a random event.

I think this is what is taking place now only it is not a continuous improvement but a declining world. society is at great risk of self destruction as many countries are trying to lift their standards but failing. I will give some examples of why, One hundred years ago the population of the world went about their business without knowing what the rest were doing now we have television and the internet as well as fast cheap travel the world is very interconnected and as a result, much jealousy has arisen due to the poor and depressed not having the same pleasure that they have seen the rest enjoy. The depressed will always look for happiness the happy will just look at the depressed.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In earlier industrial revolutions, it was thought that human intelligence is the hardest part to be overtaken by the machines. It gave humans relieve,  dignity and pride over other species.
But lately progress in AI, as well as current chip shortage told me that it may not be the case. It seems like the hardest thing humans can do to be imitated by machines is reproduction. No machine is close enough at building its own replica. At least their CPU is built by other machine especially designed to produce CPU. If it's true, then the only clear advantage that humans have over the machines is something that is not that impressive among other biological organisms. The ability to reproduce has been developed since earliest forms of life on earth.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I think this is what is taking place now only it is not a continuous improvement but a declining world.

That always happens in evolutionary process. Random mutations followed by natural selection. Some of the mutations might be bad, some others are neutral. Only a small portion of the mutations are good. But natural selection will make those good mutations more likely to survive and passed on to the next generation.

[Just thinking]

Only a small portion of the mutations are good. But natural selection will make those good mutations more likely to survive and passed on to the next generation.

That makes good sense the earth's population needs to deplete hopefully leaving only the good to replenish it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But lately progress in AI, as well as current chip shortage told me that it may not be the case. It seems like the hardest thing humans can do to be imitated by machines is reproduction. No machine is close enough at building its own replica. At least their CPU is built by other machine especially designed to produce CPU. If it's true, then the only clear advantage that humans have over the machines is something that is not that impressive among other biological organisms. The ability to reproduce has been developed since earliest forms of life on earth.

I know this one is controversial. It would hurt human's feeling of dignity and pride as the ruler/master of the earth, as well as the smartest and wisest species known to exist.

[Just thinking]

I know this one is controversial. It would hurt human's feeling of dignity and pride as the ruler/master of the earth, as well as the smartest and wisest species known to exist.

Yes, it is a bit of a blow its taken thousands of years for people to develop intelligence and acquire knowledge that computers can achieve in seconds what a person will take a lifetime to process. It's not difficult for humans to reproduce and yes this is one thing we have over computers but don't forget we can also experience pleasure and all emotions something a computer will never do.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes, it is a bit of a blow its taken thousands of years for people to develop intelligence and acquire knowledge that computers can achieve in seconds what a person will take a lifetime to process. It's not difficult for humans to reproduce and yes this is one thing we have over computers but don't forget we can also experience pleasure and all emotions something a computer will never do.

One of the main advantage of machines over biological organisms is their inherent ability of transfer learning. Training result of neural networks in a machine can be transfered to other machines seamlessly. On the other hand, each human professionals need to undergo trainings which can be expensive and take a long time to finish. Humans augmented with direct brain interface to external memory can catch up with machines in this regards.

If we want to make machines experience pleasure and all emotions, we need to define what they are in the first place.

• a strong feeling deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others.
• instinctive or intuitive feeling as distinguished from reasoning or knowledge.

What's the benefits expected from machines that can experience pleasure and emotion? What's the cost and risk?

If we use description in Wikipedia,

Emotions are biologically-based psychological states brought on by neurophysiological changes, variously associated with thoughts, feelings, behavioural responses, and a degree of pleasure or displeasure.[1][2][3][4][5] There is currently no scientific consensus on a definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion

Then non-biological entities are barred from having emotion by its very own definition. So there's no point in trying to make machines emotional.
But if we only consider behavioural responses, then machines can definitely be programmed to behave like they have emotions.

Based on discoveries made through neural mapping of the limbic system, the neurobiological explanation of human emotion is that emotion is a pleasant or unpleasant mental state organized in the limbic system of the mammalian brain. If distinguished from reactive responses of reptiles, emotions would then be mammalian elaborations of general vertebrate arousal patterns, in which neurochemicals (for example, dopamine, noradrenaline, and serotonin) step-up or step-down the brain's activity level, as visible in body movements, gestures and postures. Emotions can likely be mediated by pheromones (see fear).[34]

For example, the emotion of love is proposed to be the expression of Paleocircuits of the mammalian brain (specifically, modules of the cingulate cortex (or gyrus)) which facilitate the care, feeding, and grooming of offspring. Paleocircuits are neural platforms for bodily expression configured before the advent of cortical circuits for speech. They consist of pre-configured pathways or networks of nerve cells in the forebrain, brainstem and spinal cord.

Other emotions like fear and anxiety long thought to be exclusively generated by the most primitive parts of the brain (stem) and more associated to the fight-or-flight responses of behavior, have also been associated as adaptive expressions of defensive behavior whenever a threat is encountered. Although defensive behaviors have been present in a wide variety of species, Blanchard et al. (2001) discovered a correlation of given stimuli and situation that resulted in a similar pattern of defensive behavior towards a threat in human and non-human mammals.[95]

Whenever potentially dangerous stimuli is presented additional brain structures activate that previously thought (hippocampus, thalamus, etc). Thus, giving the amygdala an important role on coordinating the following behavioral input based on the presented neurotransmitters that respond to threat stimuli. These biological functions of the amygdala are not only limited to the "fear-conditioning" and "processing of aversive stimuli", but also are present on other components of the amygdala. Therefore, it can referred the amygdala as a key structure to understand the potential responses of behavior in danger like situations in human and non-human mammals.[96]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Neurobiological_explanation

I've read about experiments with inhibitors of neurotransmitters which makes human subjects unable to feel emotions from having experiences that usually make them emotional, such as pleasure, happiness, sadness, or fear.

If what you mean by computer is commonly used desktop PC or laptop, then it's unlikely to have them behave based on activation of neurotransmitters. But there's nothing in principle will stop them from being augmented with a neural network systems influenced by activation of chemical neurotransmitters, which makes them capable of experiencing emotions.

[Just thinking]

If we want to make machines experience pleasure and all emotions, we need to define what they are in the first place.

This is a good question I think that whatever the deep process is that generates and decides the emotion that we may feel it is going to be very complicated. If we look at it like this when we are learning a new art say flying we are inundated with confusion and fear after some time and much practice we become more confident after more time we can fly with muscle memory this is to say it becomes a natural extension of one's self to be at the controls and fly. Our feelings emotions are extensions of our natural instinct there are two main instincts love and fear love creates care and fear creates hate as they say there are two sides to every coin it would be impossible to have it any other way. It is at this point that the full spectrum of emotions develop this is the foundation for all and full consideration it is the driver of appropriate and respectful consideration for one another. Even wild animals have the ability to love as they can raise their young and maintain their partner this is just like muscle memory and it stays because it works. To have the ability to learn we must have resistance we strengthen our bodies by resistance we develop our emotions by the same principle having the opposite force applied good and bad, happy and sad laugh and cry and so it goes on. This would be very complex for a man made system to achieve may be impossible.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Even wild animals have the ability to love as they can raise their young and maintain their partner this is just like muscle memory and it stays because it works.

Many animals abandon their offspring. Some may eat them. Female praying mantis behead and eat their mates after copulation. Their survival demonstrates that their behaviors also work, so far.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This would be very complex for a man made system to achieve may be impossible.

To show that something is impossible, we need to demonstrate that it would  lead to absurd or contradictory implications. Complexity alone is not enough.

[Just thinking]

Many animals abandon their offspring. Some may eat them.

I should have stated that I was referring more to mammals and primates.

[Sebdoc]

hi all...here's how I think about it and you can let me know if it makes sense.

How some living beings choose to behave together affects whether living together is fun for them or not.
Nature has a cycle of life and death and all living beings participate in this cycle of life and death as an act of balancing (I'm trying to clarify what I mean by act of balancing below)

In the forest, living beings are dying at any moment, still the forest is fun to experience for the living beings inside the forest, as long as the entire forest isn't dying.

In a group of humans, the cycle of life and death can work either naturally,
meaning one dies of natural causes, or by human choice, meaning some decided the removal of one from the group (which can lead to death even if not directly intended).

For humans in a group to decide the removal of one from the group, and still be able to keep having fun, this choice has to be made with common sense, meaning humans decide commonly to do something that nature planned for them to find before they existed (why before they existed I am trying to explain below...)

If humans in a group commonly  decide to do something that nature didn't plan for them before they existed, they are free to do that, but when they do...what the group thinks is common sense, nature thinks otherwise, and the group degenerates to not fun, as...

...it seems unlikely to me that the choices that a group of humans makes, are more fun than what nature had to decide as common sense for humans as a species, before humans existed... as when humans find something that is common sense to them, this they write down, and this they keep reading over and over for many generations.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Many animals abandon their offspring. Some may eat them.

I should have stated that I was referring more to mammals and primates.

It's not universal then.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How some living beings choose to behave together affects whether living together is fun for them or not.

What's fun? What makes something fun?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In this video I discuss the HUGE implications of Elon Musk’s recent comments on humanoid robots (Tesla Bot aka Optimus Bot), the economy, labor and Artificial Intelligence. The implications of what robots will do the economy are profound.

3:39 Why AI Robots will make YOU Obsolete

If work is optional, what will you do to spend your time? What goal will you try to achieve?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Getting paid to do nothing has become this generation's highest goal.