[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What happens if aliens turn up and apply our moral standards to us with the roles reversed? If we complain about their insistence that they matter and that we don't, they'll just tell us that we're primitive animals because we were stupid enough to consider ourselves to be superior to them, whereas if we hadn't made that mistake, they'd have recognised us as their equals. Getting morality wrong is to sign your own death warrant.

High level of consciousness is manifested in the form of wisdom, which includes avoiding unnecessary risks. We should avoid mutual destruction, such as what we felt during cold war.
If the aliens really have high conscious level, they should know the answer to how question to achieve universal ultimate goal. One of them is embracing diversity to avoid common mode of failure. It requires collaboration among various beings, including other intelligent beings.
Humanity itself is a product of collaboration with gut bacteria. All multicellular organisms are product of endosymbiosis. The collaboration will include non-biological system to maximize the probability to achieve the goal.

[alancalverd]

What makes humans special is other humans. From the point of view of every other species (except dogs) we are either food, competition for food, or predators. Nothing special. Even dogs have an equivocal attitude: one or two familiar dogs may help you hunt or protect you, but "dog eats baby" is an everyday headline and a hungry pack will happily kill an adult.

Forming packs is nothing unusual. Termites and bees have a hugely structured society that plans ahead. Ants even farm other animals. Warfare between packs is usually rational (wolves defend their hunting territory against other packs) and occasionally irrational (marauding bands of male chimpanzees attack other families for no apparent reason) but only humans kill each other at long range because they think that their chosen enemy worships a different god - or none at all.

The extent to which humans will exert themselves to make poisons like tobacco or methamphetamine, to climb ice-covered rocks, or to jump out of aeroplanes, is unparalleled. The best definition of intelligence is "constructive laziness", and it's a surprisingly rare commodity, whereas its opposite is abundant and even revered as "art" or "philosophy".

But still, most people will argue that if a stranger human being and any other life forms are on each side of trolley problem's track, they will choose to save the human. Choosing otherwise will make them branded as immoral.

The default is to give strangers the benefit of the doubt and, like every other animal, to give preference to our own species in the absence of any other information. But given the choice between Donald Trump and a chicken, I'd save the chicken every time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What makes humans special is other humans. From the point of view of every other species (except dogs) we are either food, competition for food, or predators. Nothing special. Even dogs have an equivocal attitude: one or two familiar dogs may help you hunt or protect you, but "dog eats baby" is an everyday headline and a hungry pack will happily kill an adult.Forming packs is nothing unusual. Termites and bees have a hugely structured society that plans ahead. Ants even farm other animals. Warfare between packs is usually rational (wolves defend their hunting territory against other packs) and occasionally irrational (marauding bands of male chimpanzees attack other families for no apparent reason) but only humans kill each other at long range because they think that their chosen enemy worships a different god - or none at all.The extent to which humans will exert themselves to make poisons like tobacco or methamphetamine, to climb ice-covered rocks, or to jump out of aeroplanes, is unparalleled. The best definition of intelligence is "constructive laziness", and it's a surprisingly rare commodity, whereas its opposite is abundant and even revered as "art" or "philosophy".

Humanity can be seen as successor of our ancestors. If we trace back far enough, they won't be recognized as human. Similarly, our far future successors may not be recognized as human. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings. The gap with the next group is quite significant.
Self preservation is one of important shortcut rule of morality. Due to the advantage of collaboration, the coverage can be expanded to include other beings having the same (or at least, compatible) goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The default is to give strangers the benefit of the doubt and, like every other animal, to give preference to our own species in the absence of any other information. But given the choice between Donald Trump and a chicken, I'd save the chicken every time.

As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings. Hence, preservation of human is inline with the universal moral rule.
More number of human individuals can increase the probability of the achievement of ultimate goal through redundancy, and in lesser extent, diversity as its side effect. But due to economic law of diminishing marginal utility, at some point, increasing the number of human individuals are no longer beneficial to the overall achievement of ultimate goal. In some cases, it can even be beneficial to lower the threshold of death penalty.

[alancalverd]

As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.

Far from it.

If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.

If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.

If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.

The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.

[alancalverd]

. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings.

Please define consciousness.If humans represent the highest level of it, then consciousness appears to be defined by a tendency to self-harm, genocide, irrational belief, or the deliberate destruction of food to support market prices.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As I mentioned above, currently, humans are our only hope to prevent catastrophic events from eliminating conscious beings.

Far from it.

If you believe in consensus, then humans are responsible for catastrophic climate change that will be as disastrous as the extinction of the dinosaurs.

If you believe in science, it is clear that the absence of humans from the Chernobyl exclusion zone has allowed every native species of mammal from mice to wolves, to flourish in a garden of robust plants.

If you believe in history, you will have noted the disastrous effect of arable farming in the American dustbowl, deforestation of Easter Island, and gradual loss of freshwater habitat in Bangladesh, all due to the unlimited presence of a relatively new species (hom sap) with no significant predators.

The solution to the preservation of life on earth is fewer humans.

So you think fewer human is better. How low can you go? Is zero the best? What do you propose to get there? Do you agree with the genius who makes all people to stop reproducing as I mentioned in a previous post in this topic?
How do you define what's better or worst morally then?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

. Currently, humans are the most advanced level of consciousness biological beings.

Please define consciousness.If humans represent the highest level of it, then consciousness appears to be defined by a tendency to self-harm, genocide, irrational belief, or the deliberate destruction of food to support market prices.

I've mentioned that consciousness is multidimensional. We can make comparison among conscious beings by how far ahead they can make plans or prepare their actions. Other key performance indicators are information processing speed, memory capacity and reliablility, which determine how well their mind represents reality, which in turn determine the success probability of their goal achievements. Their ability to filter incoming information is also important to prevent them from making false assumptions which lead to bad decisions and unexpected results.
Humans who destroy their environment don't think very far ahead, hence their consciousness level isn't much higher than other species. Intelligence of smart animals are often compared to that of human children at certain age.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Almost the whole volume of the universe is nearly empty space. Hence if we want to maximize the probability to survive, we need to adapt to live there. Freely and actively, not just dormant, independent from any naturally occuring heavenly body. It doesn't mean that we must be able to live there alone and naked. We can create artificial environment such as city size spaceships which are self sustainable. We can utilize symbiosis with other life forms, including non-biological ones. Shortly, whatever it takes to achieve universal ultimate goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Instead of reducing population by force, it would be much more effective and efficient to educate them properly. They should be introduced to logic and logical fallacies as soon as they understand languages. Hopefully they can get maximum advantages from incoming information using their logic, while avoiding erroneous conclusions from logical fallacies.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here is some examples to demonstrate that moral judgment is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you realize that the bomber can swap between the blue and red wire deliberately, hence reversing the results of cutting them, does the moral judgment change?

[David Cooper]

You cut both wires at the same time and discover that the rules stated as certainties are actually impossible.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You cut both wires at the same time and discover that the rules stated as certainties are actually impossible.

In electronic, you can design the priority between those triggers. In RS flip flop, Reset command is dominant, while in SR flip flop, it's the set command. They are called bistable multivibrator.
If you know the configuration used in the bomb, you can be certain what would happen when they are both triggered simultaneously.

[syhprum]

Why not try and find the wires powering the timer if that was put out of action a more detailed examination could be made.
There are two possibilities the timer is supplying a signal to the detonator that stops it detonating or when the time runs out sends a signal to the detonator to make it explode if you stop the timer you can check which it is.
there is a worrying possibility wires powering the counter also power the don't detonate signal generator so try and find an alternative way to stop the counter !
If the timer is mechanical you could try zapping it with a CO2 fire extinguisher if one is handy , best of luck.
If I was building this device I would incorporate a small battery in the detonator box and make the signal from the timer "don't explode" and use the other wire to prime the device.
You would only have to provide a don't explode signal from the timer and cut the signal from the timer.
I am assuming only DC signals are used if one used AC signals and frequency sensitive detectors it would be a whole new ball game   

[David Cooper]

Here is some examples to demonstrate that moral judgment is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?

The decision will depend on other information. Is the bomb on the top floor or the ground floor? Are there any other people in the building? If this is an office block and it's empty at night, no one sane would snip either wire when they can just run out of there in the two minutes that are available.

However, let's assume the higher floors of the building are full of people who can't possibly get out in two minutes (or even be warned within two minutes), that the bomb is on the ground floor, and the the building will collapse as soon as it blows. There is nothing immoral about not risking your own death in order to have a 50:50 chance of saving lots of other people, so you are entitled to run out of there and let it blow. If AGI is making the decision though, it could lock you in with the bomb so that you don't have a choice - that would be its moral decision. You would then cut one of the wires, randomly selected.

There are some other factors though. If the person who has to run or cut a wire is more valuable to humanity than the sum total worth of all the other people in the building, AGI will not lock him/her in the room, but will order him/her to get out of there and let the building blow. If the building is full of Nazis who are attending a conference, that could well happen.

[Halc]

Here is some examples to demonstrate that moral judgment is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
You are in a tall and large building, and find a massive time bomb which makes it impossible to move before disarming it first. You can see red and blue wires on the detonator, and a counting down clock showing that there is only 2 minutes left before it explodes. You are an expert in explosives, sou you know for certain the following premises:
- if you cut the red wire, the bomb will be disarmed.
- If you cut the blue wire, the bomb will explode immediately, destroying the entire building and killing thousands inside.
- If you do nothing about the bomb, the timer will eventually trigger the bomb.
Which is the most moral decision you can take, which is the least moral, and why?

If this topic is about universal morals, then the bomb question has not nearly enough information. Why mess with a device that has a clear purpose? It has not been stated that there is a goal to preserve the building. Maybe the bomb was put there by a demolition crew who was paid to take it down.
Suppose the building is full of puppies. It is a universal law that it is bad to damage something cute, correct? If so, you've already begged your answer. If not, how am I to know what to do with the bomb even if it has a simple 'off' switch available? The universe seems to provide no input for the situation at hand.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why not try and find the wires powering the timer if that was put out of action a more detailed examination could be made.
There are two possibilities the timer is supplying a signal to the detonator that stops it detonating or when the time runs out sends a signal to the detonator to make it explode if you stop the timer you can check which it is.
there is a worrying possibility wires powering the counter also power the don't detonate signal generator so try and find an alternative way to stop the counter !
If the timer is mechanical you could try zapping it with a CO2 fire extinguisher if one is handy , best of luck.
If I was building this device I would incorporate a small battery in the detonator box and make the signal from the timer "don't explode" and use the other wire to prime the device.
You would only have to provide a don't explode signal from the timer and cut the signal from the timer.
I am assuming only DC signals are used if one used AC signals and frequency sensitive detectors it would be a whole new ball game

In this thread I don't want to go too deep into technical details. I think it's adequate to describe cause and effect relationships in the situation to determine which action to take to get the most desired possible result.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If this topic is about universal morals, then the bomb question has not nearly enough information. Why mess with a device that has a clear purpose? It has not been stated that there is a goal to preserve the building. Maybe the bomb was put there by a demolition crew who was paid to take it down.
Suppose the building is full of puppies. It is a universal law that it is bad to damage something cute, correct? If so, you've already begged your answer. If not, how am I to know what to do with the bomb even if it has a simple 'off' switch available? The universe seems to provide no input for the situation at hand.

Yes it is about universal morals. And yes, the situation was designed to show that moral judgement is closely related to knowledge and uncertainty.
Unfortunately, cuteness is not a universal value. Something cute to someone might be not cute for someone else.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

However, let's assume the higher floors of the building are full of people who can't possibly get out in two minutes (or even be warned within two minutes), that the bomb is on the ground floor, and the the building will collapse as soon as it blows. There is nothing immoral about not risking your own death in order to have a 50:50 chance of saving lots of other people, so you are entitled to run out of there and let it blow. If AGI is making the decision though, it could lock you in with the bomb so that you don't have a choice - that would be its moral decision. You would then cut one of the wires, randomly selected.

There are some other factors though. If the person who has to run or cut a wire is more valuable to humanity than the sum total worth of all the other people in the building, AGI will not lock him/her in the room, but will order him/her to get out of there and let the building blow. If the building is full of Nazis who are attending a conference, that could well happen.

To determine what's the universally most moral action in a particular situation, we need first to determine what's the universal goal we want to achieve, and then calculate and compare the expected results we would get by taking available actions. We should take actions expected to get us closest to the universal goal.
Someone might have good intention when making a moral decision, but their decision may produce undesired result if it's based on false information, such as swapped wire of the time bomb.