[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"Technology is good, therefore more technology is better!" - Why Aligning Humanity is the Hard Part

Technology is an instrumental goal. Overemphasis on one instrumental goal to the point that hindering the achievement of the terminal goal is not a wise choice.

[alancalverd]

Technology is a set of tools. Or at least it used to be. Nowadays it's become a general term for fashionable stuff you don't really need, that makes your life complicated and expensive.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Technology is a set of tools. Or at least it used to be. Nowadays it's become a general term for fashionable stuff you don't really need, that makes your life complicated and expensive.

Which technology are you referring to?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

the existence of any two conscious entities with different goals (e.g. predator and prey) means that there is no universal goal.

They both try to extend their existence into the future. Killing the prey is an instrumental goal for the predator. Letting the predator die in starvation is an instrumental goal for the prey.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

common usage of the word "universal" as in "universal declaration of human rights".

a member of the species homo sapiens - a mostly hairless bipedal mammal with (mostly) 46 chromosomes and a unique desire and ability to kill other members of the same species for no logical reason

Being bipedal nor having 46 chromosomes are not universally required to have a goal.

[alancalverd]

Being bipedal nor having 46 chromosomes are not universally required to have a goal.

Which is why I said "mostly". It's the default state of homo sapiens but folk with fewer legs or more chromosomes qualify if they are the offspring of members of the said species.

The task you set was to characterise a human, not to specify the requirements for having a goal.

[alancalverd]

Which technology are you referring to?

Old technology: hammers, soldering irons, computers, telephones that make and receive voice calls.

New technology: cars that think they know what the driver wants, better than the driver, and/or take all night to refuel. Phones that receive garbage like Whatsapp and other things that drive kids to suicide. Anything owned by Elon Musk.

[alancalverd]

Letting the predator die in starvation is an instrumental goal for the prey.

No.You are assuming that the prey knows the nature of every possible predator, and that the predator only has one prey species.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Being bipedal nor having 46 chromosomes are not universally required to have a goal.

Which is why I said "mostly". It's the default state of homo sapiens but folk with fewer legs or more chromosomes qualify if they are the offspring of members of the said species.

The task you set was to characterise a human, not to specify the requirements for having a goal.

Essentially, I asked what makes you think that being human is a universal requirement to have a goal.

[alancalverd]

I don't. I just pointed out that there are two common usages of "universal" and that neither can be applied to your concept of a terminal goal. .

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I don't. I just pointed out that there are two common usages of "universal" and that neither can be applied to your concept of a terminal goal. .

Well, that means that my usage is not that common, at least in your experience.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Which technology are you referring to?

Old technology: hammers, soldering irons, computers, telephones that make and receive voice calls.

New technology: cars that think they know what the driver wants, better than the driver, and/or take all night to refuel. Phones that receive garbage like Whatsapp and other things that drive kids to suicide. Anything owned by Elon Musk.

Do you think you would be better off without those technology?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Letting the predator die in starvation is an instrumental goal for the prey.

No.You are assuming that the prey knows the nature of every possible predator, and that the predator only has one prey species.

I'm commenting on your specific example, which involves a specific prey and a specific predator.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

New Rule: Mr. Beast is Helping Wrong! | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

It's the season of giving and Bill Maher calls out the haters who complain that YouTube celebrity Mr. Beast is only serving himself when helping others.

Some people are getting so confused to think that disabilities is not something to be solved. Or dying of thirst, or drinking contaminated water. People need to get their priority straight.

[alancalverd]

Letting the predator die in starvation is an instrumental goal for the prey.

No.You are assuming that the prey knows the nature of every possible predator, and that the predator only has one prey species.

I'm commenting on your specific example, which involves a specific prey and a specific predator.

No, I said ANY predator and prey - nothing specific at all. There's an implicit  philological point that you can't have one without the other, but plenty of species (dogs, foxes, eagles...) prey on rabbits, for instance, and each of the predators probably has a broad spectrum of prey (mice, insects, birds...) other than rabbits.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, I said ANY predator and prey - nothing specific at all. There's an implicit  philological point that you can't have one without the other, but plenty of species (dogs, foxes, eagles...) prey on rabbits, for instance, and each of the predators probably has a broad spectrum of prey (mice, insects, birds...) other than rabbits.

You won't be able to find a universal goal by looking at some local goals. By definition, a universal goal is non-local.
Instead of individual point of view, you should look for the universal goal from the perspective of broader systems.

[alancalverd]

Your "broader systems" must include all subsystems if your goal is to be universal. "Universal excluding rabbits" isn't universal, nor is "universal excluding eagles".

So the one truly universal goal shared by all life forms is the desire to stay alive. Except for those who wish to die.

So there cannot be a universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your "broader systems" must include all subsystems if your goal is to be universal. "Universal excluding rabbits" isn't universal, nor is "universal excluding eagles".

So the one truly universal goal shared by all life forms is the desire to stay alive. Except for those who wish to die.

So there cannot be a universal terminal goal.

You are describing  the paradox of tolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

You are allowed to be a rabbit as long as your "rabbit-ness" doesn't go against the universal terminal goal.
 

[alancalverd]

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out that any one goal may not be to the liking of every creature, so there can be no universal goal.

No paradox, just simple mathematics.: either "universal" means shared by all, or it means predetermined by the laws of physics. We have failed to identify a goal that can satisfy the first definition, and if we apply the second, it is inevitable and therefore not worth discussing.

The apparently inevitable goal of  physics is the heat death of the universe. Nothing to do with conscious beings, however you want to define consciousness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's been a while since I uploaded a new video for this thread.

It's generally accepted that not all information has the same importance. Some are more important than the others.
Getting it wrong on important things can have severe consequences.
We need to keep the low probability of being wrong on high impact situations.
Reducing the probability of being wrong, or improving accuracy of information, consumes some resources.
We should prioritize improving accuracy and precision of information with highest risk for being wrong, until it has acceptable risk level. The video title is Universal Utopia 7: Risk Based Thinking.

I planned to make a video about natural consciousness, and how functional components of consciousness can emerge from natural processes. But before that, let's recall how things exist at all, regardless of their consciousness.

I'll make a preview for the next videos of naturally occurring conscious systems. Starting with the simplest things that are required for a system to become conscious, but not enough yet to be called conscious. It's the prerequisites to a system, as shown in the video above at 2:40.
Any system, regardless if it's conscious or not, starts with a boundary between its inner part and outer environment. This boundary can occur naturally in a natural system, or defined by a conscious system in an artificial system.
Surface of a rain drop is an example of a natural boundary.

Why do things exist? Setting the stage for evolution.
This video kicks off the evolution series by going broad and thinking about why things - including non-living things - exist at all. The first in a series on evolution.