[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Prototypes or real life models are thought to be the most accurate and precise to predict various responses of complex systems to stimuli. But they are expensive. That's why they are only done near the end of design phases when the uncertainty is reasonably low, while the severity is considered high, such as the case of new human medical treatments and car safety in a crash.
For earlier design phases, we can use cheaper and less accurate models. For medical treatment, we traditionally use animals. In modern labs we can use organoid or HeLa cells. In many physical objects, we can use their miniature versions.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Trial and error would be much cheaper, hence more efficient, if we could do it in a virtual environment, like computer simulation, if we can get it to be adequately accurate and precise in representing objective reality.

Adequately accurate and precise virtual representation of objective reality is what we commonly called knowledge. It's a form of data compression.
At the most fundamental level, knowledge consist of two types of data: nodes and edges. They are the data points and the relationship among them, respectively.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." This is attributed to Lao-Tzu. Descartes had taken the first step for our journey through the cosmos by identifying the most fundamental knowledge with his cogito ergo sum. But if the subsequent steps are directed to the wrong way, we wouldn't be able to reach our destination. The universal terminal goal acts like a lodestar that will guide us and keep us in the right direction in this journey.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let's take the journey analogy a little bit further. Knowing where we start and where the destination is are not enough to get us there safely. We can't just go straight to the destination in the shortest path. We need to consider obstacles and dangers along the way, and how to avoid or overcome them.
In most cases, we can't just go from home to our work place by simply following a straight line. Even if we use helicopter or flying taxi, we need to make some maneuver, at least when we're on the ground prior to take off or after landing.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ray Kurzweil depicted the future in technological singularity by turning most of accessible matters into information processing objects as parts of AGI. In the future, there will be more smart matters and less dumb matters. Internet of things and edge computing are inevitably emerging as parts of the progress.
Although the long term trend seems to align with that direction,  we can't just follow it blindly while ignoring other important and more urgent issues. Besides of information processing, any conscious entities need some other things, such as power sources, energy storages, protective shields, data back up, material processing, and waste disposal and management.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

But now we can decide which microbiome should live inside us, which one should die,

So there is an inevitable conflict of interests, and only human vanity decides which should win. No sign of a universal goal! 

There are conflict of interest between people from different countries. Also from the same country. Or the same organization. Even among siblings. Even twins. Even among cells in the same human individual. But that doesn't mean that they can't have common goals.
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. It's not restricted to selfish behavior, although self preservation is important up to some limit.
In general, parents want to give better lives to their children. It means that their children would have better chance to survive, but also means that the children are not exactly the same as the parents. Extrapolated to many generations, the accumulated difference between earliest ancestors and latest descendants could be huge, they are unrecognizable anymore to be in the same lineage.
Our ancestors played their roles as the scaffolding to our existence. We also have our role to be the scaffolding to the existence of our descendants or successors. A good moral standard would tell us if we behave like a good or bad scaffolding. It would inevitably prioritize things according to their impacts to the future of consciousness. There would be sacrifices in one form or another.

I bring my argumentation from my other thread since it's closely related to my latest post here. The most direct transition or transformation from one point or shape to another is probably not the most effective nor efficient. Building tall buildings usually need scaffolding, which will be removed once the building is finished. Some chemical reactions need precursors and/or catalyst, which are separated from the finish product. A caterpillar turns into chrysalis before it becomes a butterfly.
Moving from a second storey window to the ground can be done quickly by simply jump. But it's usually not the safe way.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A natural way to make improvements is through competition. Nature rewards the winners and punishes the losers. But winners aren't usually flawless, while the losers often have their own virtues. Some unlucky accidents may prevent the best competitors from being the winners.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Elon Musk (@elonmusk) tweeted at 1:55 AM on Sun, Jun 06, 2021:
Goods & services are the real economy, any form of money is simply the accounting thereof
(https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1401251430015582209?s=03)
 
Previously, I've mentioned similar idea here, but using a more general term for goods & services, which is resources.
Producing goods or services needs resources. They aren't just raw materials, which are obvious for the case of goods. Some goods may have cheap raw materials, but involve expensive process due to high energy requirement or safety concerns.
The resources required to produce services by professionals such as barbers, lawyers, surgeon, or technicians, can take forms of time and energy needed to do the jobs, on top of resources needed to train and learn the required knowledge and skills to do the jobs, and also the tools and consummables.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ray Kurzweil depicted the future in technological singularity by turning most of accessible matters into information processing objects as parts of AGI. In the future, there will be more smart matters and less dumb matters. Internet of things and edge computing are inevitably emerging as parts of the progress.
Although the long term trend seems to align with that direction,  we can't just follow it blindly while ignoring other important and more urgent issues. Besides of information processing, any conscious entities need some other things, such as power sources, energy storages, protective shields, data back up, material processing, and waste disposal and management.

Expanding universal consciousness requires resources, including raw materials. Contributors of consciousness in the form of life as we know it has natural limits. Human population can't keep growing beyond those limits.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/phosphorus-is-vital-for-life-and-were-running-low

All life needs phosphorus and agricultural yields are improved when phosphorus is added to growing plants and the diet of livestock. Consequently, it is used globally as a fertilizer — and plays an important role in meeting the world’s food requirements.

In order for us to add it, however, we first need to extract it from a concentrated form — and the supply comes almost exclusively from phosphate mines in Morocco (with far smaller quantities coming from China, the U.S., Jordan and South Africa). Within Morocco, most of the mines are in Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony which was annexed by Morocco in 1975.

The fact that more than 70 percent of the global supply comes from this single location is problematic, especially as scientists are warning that we are approaching “peak phosphorus”, the point at which demand begins to outstrip supply and intensive agriculture cannot continue to provide current yields. In the worst case scenario, mineable reserves could be exhausted within as little as 35 years.


In the first half of the 19th century, Justus von Liebig popularized the law of the minimum for agriculture, which states that growth is limited by the least available resource. It was soon discovered that this was often some form of phosphorus.

As a consequence, bones — comprised mostly of calcium and phosphate — from old battlefields were dug up to use in farming. Guano, large accumulations of bird droppings, also contains high concentrations of phosphorus and was used to fertilize crops. But supplies of this were soon depleted. As demand increased, supplies had to be mined instead.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why Biofuels Are Terrible

Energy is one form of resources required to expand universal consciousness. It's important to choose its source wisely.
Chosing the best options should be done holistically, taking into account all conceivable costs and benefits into as far as possible future allowed by our information processing capability, using our most accurate model of objective reality.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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 realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.
Previously I said that the universal terminal goal is to protect the last conscious being. Although this one is a logical consequence of my preferred expression above, it seems to add a preliminary task, which is identifying who the last conscious being is. It also seems to imply that the other conscious beings are to be ignored.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Previously I said that the universal terminal goal is to protect the last conscious being. Although this one is a logical consequence of my preferred expression above, it seems to add a preliminary task, which is identifying who the last conscious being is. It also seems to imply that the other conscious beings are to be ignored.

It also seems to hint as if the last conscious being to be protected consists of a single entity, presumably biological. In reality, it's unlikely to be the case. Protecting a conscious being effectively requires protecting its redundancy back ups, as well as its supporting entities and facilities. Preserving some diversity of the back ups is necessary to avoid common mode failures.

For example, every human individual is a redundancy back up for the others. They are also in interdependent relationships with each other. Their survival also depends on their environmental conditions.

With these in mind, we can see that the last conscious being to be protected at all costs is not restricted to be a biological individual specimen. Instead, it's the whole system of consciousness with its members interdependent from each others.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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 realise that I have expressed the idea of universal terminal goal in some different ways. I feel that this one is the least controversial and easiest to follow.

So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.

The word Goal means preferred state or condition in the future. If it's not preferred, it can't be a goal. If it's already happened in the past, it can't be a goal either. Although it's possible that the goal is to make future condition similar to preferred condition in the past as reference. The preference requires the existence of at least one conscious entity. Preference can't exist in a universe without consciousness, so can't a goal.
add: The definition of goal can be made more compact to become "pursued condition". Because the word "pursue" already implies preference and future condition.

The word Terminal requires that the goal is seen from the persepective of conscious entities that exist in the furthest conceivable future. If the future point of reference is too close to the present, it would expire soon and the goal won't be usable anymore.

The word Universal requires that no other constraint should be added to the goal determined by aforementioned words. The only valid constraints have already been set by the words goal and terminal.

I've summarized the core concepts of the thread into some videos which I collected in a playlist.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLZ2PyRUoub7jJFt6uQ8Osxdg8zLtLN_1m

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is another way to describe consciousness in the context of universal terminal goal. Consciousness level of a system  describes how much control it has to determine its own future.

Here is a documentary video discussing about consciousness.

What is consciousness? Consciousness is what we know best and explain least. It is the inner subjective experience of what it feels like to see red or smell garlic or hear Beethoven. Consciousness is baffling. Featuring interviews with Simon Blackburn, Susan Greenfield, Christof Koch, Bruce Hood, and Roy Baumeister.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So, I think I have arrived to the final conclusion about universal terminal goal. It came from definitions of each word in the phrase, and take their implications into account. Goal is the noun, while terminal and universal are the adjectives that describe the noun.

It seems that the universal terminal goal puts more emphasis on time dimension over the others such as space and mass. Which means that given the same amount of conscious beings, it's more preferred to have consciousness go further into the future, rather than go further into distant places or get more numerous but then go extinct more early.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How World Almost Ended in 2012 And Still Might Later!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Why Buridan’s Ass Doesn’t Starve | Issue 81 | Philosophy Now" https://philosophynow.org/issues/81/Why_Buridans_Ass_Doesnt_Starve

Imagine you go to a restaurant. Looking at the menu, you discover that they serve your two favourite meals – say asparagus and spinach tart. What will you do? You may hesitate for a while, but then you will make your choice. You have to make a choice, don’t you? Even if you’re hungry or greedy enough to order both, you have to decide which to eat first.

Now, how do you decide? Given that you like both equally, why do you choose, say, spinach tart, and not asparagus? There are two possible general answers. You can say either that:

a) There is no reason (no cause) for your choice. You just act, and you could equally well choose the other meal. Or:

b) There is a reason, but it’s unknown to you.

The second answer seems more plausible, because it accords with a principle that’s fundamental to the way we think. This principle is commonly called Leibniz’s Law, or the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It can be stated in various ways:

• Nihil sine ratione: Nothing is without a reason.

• Nothing happens without a sufficient reason/cause.

• For each event A there is another event B (or a combination of events) that precedes it and fully explains why A had to happen.

• Ex nihilo nihil fit: Nothing comes out of nothing.

Of course there are situations where we have difficulties in making up our minds (we sometimes have those difficulties, but not donkeys). This is often the case when much depends on our decision. But in the end we will decide one way or the other, even if only because the lapse of time changes the situation. Buridan’s ass starves because he’s imagined as timeless, as somehow removed from the passage of time. He’s frozen in a situation where there’s only him and the two piles of hay. Yet since donkeys live in time, no donkey will ever starve because he lacks free will

The paradox seems to quickly dismiss that sitting still wasting time is a third option, which makes the situation a false dichotomy. In this case, wasting time indefinitely is the worst possible option, which should be avoided. When the other two options are equally good, then choosing randomly would be great.

[Colin2B]

The paradox seems to quickly dismiss that sitting still wasting time is a third option, which makes the situation a false dichotomy. In this case, wasting time indefinitely is the worst possible option, which should be avoided. When the other two options are equally good, then choosing randomly would be great.

There is a third option. There is a reason for your choice and it’s known to you.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is a third option. There is a reason for your choice and it’s known to you.

Are you still talking about Buridan's ass? In this case, the options are :
go to left
go to right
go to neither,  or stay where it is

[Colin2B]

There is a third option. There is a reason for your choice and it’s known to you.

Are you still talking about Buridan's ass? In this case, the options are :
go to left
go to right
go to neither,  or stay where it is

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