[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This number can be depicted as the angle directing a vector in complex plane.

This raises question, what's the reference to measure the angle?  An arbitrarily chosen terminal goal of a system must coincide with itself. Hence it takes something else as external reference.
As long as a system doesn't cover the whole universe, it must be a part of a bigger system. So, we can use the terminal goal of this bigger system as the reference to measure the goal alignment of its subsystems.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As long as a system doesn't cover the whole universe, it must be a part of a bigger system. So, we can use the terminal goal of this bigger system as the reference to measure the goal alignment of its subsystems.

Here are some concrete examples to help understanding the concept. A scout ant whose terminal goal is to find food is aligned with the terminal goal of ant colony, which is to thrive.

A corrupt politicians whose terminal goal is to enrich himself in the expense of his people is opposed to the terminal goal of his country. This will yield a negative value of consciousness. The more resources and power given to him, the harder it gets to achieve his country's terminal goal.
A psychopathic serial killer whose goal is to get personal pleasure by killing innocent people is opposed to the goal of his society.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In some languages, as well as many branches of math, a double negative can yield a positive result. Enemy of our enemy is our friend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot
The conspirators of 20 July plot have opposite alignment with Nazi government, which in turn has opposite alignment with global civilization.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As long as a system doesn't cover the whole universe, it must be a part of a bigger system. So, we can use the terminal goal of this bigger system as the reference to measure the goal alignment of its subsystems.

If human civilization expands into multistellar civilization, it's likely that we will eventually encounter other civilizations who also has passed the great filter. We will form a larger system of consciousness.
On the other hand, if we can survive long enough confined in a single planet, we will eventually be found by other civilization with more advanced technology to reach us here.
Another possibility is that we already extinct before any of above cases happens. It would means that everything that we have done become useless.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Another possibility is that we already extinct before any of above cases happens. It would means that everything that we have done become useless.

It seems like nihilists have taken this almost worst case scenario for granted. They were unable to think of possibilities for better cases I mentioned previously.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

11:45 Unlike philosophers who are extremely patient people, they can discuss something for thousands of years without reaching any agreement and they are fine with that, the engineers won't wait. And even if the engineers are willing to wait, the investors behind them won't wait.

To be fair to the philosophers, I have to mention what their job is according to themselves. In an interview, a philosopher said that the job of philosophers are to make explicit something that people take for granted in everyday/practical conversations.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Mark Zuckerberg & Yuval Noah Harari in a Conversation

in 51:15 they argue about centralization vs decentralization.
I've put my thought into this issue in my previous post.

An interstellar or intergalactic civilization will have to deal with communication and transportation problems. Interactions among different stellar or galactic systems can't happen in real time. We will have limited bandwidth and big latency problems. The solutions must contain decentralisation or localization of resources, akin to edge computing I've mentioned in another thread. Local problems are better solved locally. Global problems are better solved globally. Universal problems are better solved universally.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In 1:06:30, Harari gave his thought on free will.

The people that are easiest to manipulate are the people who believe in free will, and will simply identify with whatever thought or desire pops up in their mind because they cannot even imagine that this desire is not a result of my free will, it is the result of some external manipulation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In some languages, as well as many branches of math, a double negative can yield a positive result. Enemy of our enemy is our friend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Valkyrie
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/20_July_plot
The conspirators of 20 July plot have opposite alignment with Nazi government, which in turn has opposite alignment with global civilization.

I think it's important for humanity to keep their terminal goal aligned with the universal terminal goal. Otherwise, our existence would be seen as obstacle by larger conscious entity that would emerge in the future. If that's the case, our efforts would just become wasting of time and other resources, and we would be better off extinct as soon as possible.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I guess there's nothing much left to say about terminal goal, at least for now. So let's talk about how we can achieve it.
Our efforts to achieve our goals are evaluated by their effectiveness and efficiency. An effort is said to be effective if doing it can get us closer to our goal, compared to if it's not done. An effort is said to be efficient if most resources we put into it are actually used to achieve our goals, and least of them are wasted without added value.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Another possibility is that we already extinct before any of above cases happens. It would means that everything that we have done become useless.

It seems like nihilists have taken this almost worst case scenario for granted. They were unable to think of possibilities for better cases I mentioned previously.

Before continuing on instrumental goal, I'd like to share a discussion about nihilism.

Should We All Be Nihilists? (Feat. Rationality Rules and Rachel Oates)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Our efforts to achieve our goals are evaluated by their effectiveness and efficiency. An effort is said to be effective if doing it can get us closer to our goal, compared to if it's not done. An effort is said to be efficient if most resources we put into it are actually used to achieve our goals, and least of them are wasted without added value.

Efficiency is usually expressed as ratio. 100% means 0 resource is wasted, while 0% means nothing but wastes.
There is 1 common mistake we often make, which is not treating time as a valuable resource. It tends to make us overestimate the efficiency of our efforts.

[Origin]

Another possibility is that we already extinct before any of above cases happens. It would means that everything that we have done become useless.

It seems like nihilists have taken this almost worst case scenario for granted. They were unable to think of possibilities for better cases I mentioned previously.

Before continuing on instrumental goal, I'd like to share a discussion about nihilism.

Should We All Be Nihilists? (Feat. Rationality Rules and Rachel Oates)

I haven't read any of your blog here, I just was noticing that you seem to be having an involved discussion with yourself.  Kind of strange and pointless.  Anyway, sorry to interrupt, I will let you get back to you and yourself having your little talk.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I haven't read any of your blog here, I just was noticing that you seem to be having an involved discussion with yourself.  Kind of strange and pointless.  Anyway, sorry to interrupt, I will let you get back to you and yourself having your little talk.

I have some ideas I'd like to share with everyone. I wrote them here to get some feedback from someone else who can see them from different perspective, discover my blind spot, and find errors in my reasoning.
I use this thread in this forum more like a sandbox, where I can write down raw ideas newly crossed my mind so I can refine it later after receiving some feedbacks and rethinking about them, and not just forget about them.
Perhaps you haven't found any point here precisely because you haven't read it yet. In which case I can only suggest you to start reading it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Perhaps you haven't found any point here precisely because you haven't read it yet. In which case I can only suggest you to start reading it.

Once in a while I summarized my ideas thus far by extracting core points and omitting non-essential parts, because the thread has gotten too large to read by a newly joined members in a single sitting time. I've already mentioned that I was planning to compile my ideas here into videos which I'll upload to my Youtube channel. Unfortunately I haven't found appropriate time to edit them yet.
After reading at least some ideas I put here, you may compare them with your own ideas that you currently have, and list down their differences and similarities with mine. You can then estimate which idea is better, and if it can be improved even further. If you think that my ideas are still imperfect, you can point out what kind of change can be made to improve them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To verify and scrutinize my ideas, I often compare them with the thought of some previous thinkers and philosophers  which can be found online. By listing down their differences and similarities, also their underlying assumptions, including the hidden or implicit ones, we can identify their strengths and weaknesses, as the basis for our acceptance of those ideas.

This thread is arranged in chronological order, based on when the ideas crossed my mind, and I had the time to write them down. But structurally, the idea start with finding the most fundamental truth which we can't deny, since denying it leads to contradiction. This brings me
Descartes' cogito ergo sum. But as soon as I started to work from there to get more practical concepts, Descartes failed miserably. Many thinkers who came after him have critisized his idea and tried to improve it by proposing some changes. But in none of them I found convincing argumentation leading to a universal terminal goal, and what should we try to achieve. It's necessary for us to prioritize our actions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Efficiency is usually expressed as ratio. 100% means 0 resource is wasted, while 0% means nothing but wastes.
There is 1 common mistake we often make, which is not treating time as a valuable resource. It tends to make us overestimate the efficiency of our efforts.

As I mentioned earlier, efficiency is a universal instrumental goal. In practice, pursuing efficiency in one part of a system may cause inefficiency in some other parts of the same system. Hence we must find some balance to get optimum results.
Some efforts to achieve efficiency are through centralization and decentralization. Though they may seem to be complete opposite, they share a common goal, which is to increase overall efficiency.

Is the Future of Factories micro or GIGA?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Efficiency is usually expressed as ratio. 100% means 0 resource is wasted, while 0% means nothing but wastes.
There is 1 common mistake we often make, which is not treating time as a valuable resource. It tends to make us overestimate the efficiency of our efforts.

AFAIK, there's still no consensus to calculate effectiveness nor efficiency. They depend on how the goal is defined. It determines whether or not we can get overunity in effectiveness, or if our efforts can have negative effectiveness. Ditto for efficiency.
For example, the goal is to walk 10000 steps in a day. The method is by walking to and from work place, instead of using vehicles. If it turns out we walk 12000 steps a day, would we say that the effectiveness of our method 120%, instead of 100%?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Qin Shi Huang drank mercury, thinking it would give him eternal life. Hugely ambitious, Qin Shi Huang sought eternal life. He dispatched a minister overseas, never to return, in search of a magic potion.

"The army that conquered the world - BBC Culture" https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20170411-the-army-that-conquered-the-world

Do we count the effectiveness of his effort 0 or was it -100%?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Our perception of the goal, whether it's perceived as terminal or instrumental goal may influence our calculation of effectiveness and efficiency. Failing to achieve instrumental goals is generally more acceptable than failing to achieve terminal goals.

Winning a skirmish battle and winning a war are often cited as examples of instrumental and terminal goals, respectively.
In ancient times, losing a war can mean a complete destruction of a civilization, like what happened to the Canaanites. But in modern day, it may not be the case anymore. Germans lost both world wars, but now they are among wealthiest countriest in Europe, even on earth.
It shows us that even winning a war is just an instrumental goal to help achieving a longer term terminal goal.