[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They could be identified by their common traits, such as shape, size, color, sound, smell, or other unique signatures.

For complex conscious beings, behavioral traits are more likely to have bigger impacts than physical traits. Thieves may look similar to philanthropists. It generates necessity to distinguish between good and bad behaviors.
In biological entities, behavioral traits are tied to physical bodies. Thus identifying physical traits like face or voice recognitions have significant advantages. More modern biometrics like finger prints, retina pattern, and DNA improve precision.
But AI and modern humans with hybrid minds can easily transfer information, including knowledge and behaviors, with each others. An AI can run in several different hardwares at once for load distribution and redundancy. On the other hand, a machine can run several AI agents at once. It makes physical identifications less relevant.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It generates necessity to distinguish between good and bad behaviors.

This is what we usually call morality.

[alancalverd]

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.

There are only two possibilities as to why things exist. Either (a) they were created for a purpose by a timeless omnipotent being or (b) they just do. There is no evidence for (a).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

There are only two possibilities as to why things exist. Either (a) they were created for a purpose by a timeless omnipotent being or (b) they just do. There is no evidence for (a).

(c)they were created for a purpose by one or more conscious but mortal beings.

[alancalverd]

Mortal beings don't create stuff - we just reorganise it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Mortal beings don't create stuff - we just reorganise it.

It depends on how you define "create".

[alancalverd]

Nothing → creating → something  Requires a deity or a big bang

Something → art or engineering → something different  Done by natural processes or living things

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

BREAKTHROUGH: Scientists Reverse Blindness [CRISPR Technology]
In the future, sacrificing someone's organ will no longer be an ethical dilemma.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Environmental conditions change from time to time, which may require different traits as possible solutions. So some variations/diversities in the duplicates of a conscious entity are likely to be beneficial in the long run. They give some flexibilities for the group of conscious entities to survive in different possible environmental conditions. A group of exactly the same duplicates of a conscious entity is vulnerable to common mode failures.

This applies to behavioral traits too. Hence there must be some tolerance to differences in behaviors. But there must also be some limits. Behaviors that are proven to cause negative impacts to the society should not be tolerated. We call them immoral.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How Sam Bankman Went From 0 To $27 Billion In 4 Years

I'm sure you've all heard about teenagers and young adults hitting it big with cryptocurrencies. Many of them have been able to turn a few thousand dollars into hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. But like with every money rush, it's often way more lucrative to be the one selling the shovels as opposed to the one mining for gold. One entrepreneur who chose to sell the shovels to crypto traders is Sam Bankman who is the founder of FTX. FTX specializes in offering high-speed trading and leverage options to experienced traders. But, naturally, a lot of retail gamblers have joined the site in hopes of hitting it big. Sam started FTX just a little over two years ago in May of 2019, and it's already made him a deca-billionaire worth $26.5 billion. Aside from FTX, Sam also created the FTX token and is tokenizing popular stocks like Apple. Sam hopes that by making a lot of money, he can donate a lot of money to altruistic purposes. So far, he's donated $25 million, but his goal is in the billions. This video explains the monumental rise of Sam Bankman and how he went from 0 to $26.5 billion in 4 years.

Discord Community:
https://discord.gg/SJUNWNt

Timestamps:
0:00 - Selling The Shovels
1:03 - Sam Bankman
2:22 - Arbitrage Trading
4:13 - Crypto Brokerage
5:41 - Leveraged Trading
8:07 - Sam’s Neutral Stance

Can we find the moral of the story here?

[alancalverd]

"Speculate to accumulate."  Speculating on the speculators is a high risk, high gain strategy.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

 

"Speculate to accumulate."  Speculating on the speculators is a high risk, high gain strategy.

My take is, running the casino should be more profitable than gambling. Although we can still find some casinos that went bankrupt.

[alancalverd]

Always the case. There are 38 slots on a roulette wheel,two of which belong to the house. You can bet at 2:1 (odd/even, high/low, red/black) or 36:1 (any number) but long term the house will take 2/38 of your money at each spin. Similarly with card games like blackjack - you are actually playing against the other players rather than the house. There is a very small chance that you might win several consecutive 36:1 bets and break the house, but that's business.....

When I become Minister for Gambling I will insist that adverts for lotteries and on-line casinos cannot use the words "play" and "game". The only permitted phrase is  "give us your money".

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Previously I've described the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal as the morality with the least requirements/necessary assumptions. The minimum requirements are implied by the definitions of each words in the universal terminal goal itself.
This can be seen as the basic foundation for other moralities. In other words, other moralities can be aligned with the universal moral standard by adding some conditionals or assumptions that correctly represent objective reality. If those requirements are not met, then they deviate from universal moral standard, hence universally immoral.

Let's continue from where I've left. Previously, I've identified necessary assumptions to make personal morality and kin morality align with universal moral standard. The scope of the kin can be set small or large, depending on the similarities of traits deemed necessary to distinguish between in-group and out-group. In universal moral standard, the scope is set to be as large as possible. As long as an entity is conscious, it's considered in-group.
Getting morality with larger scope than that is self defeating. It would lead to "anything goes", and nothing can be considered good or bad anymore, which is the purpose of morality in the first place.

[alancalverd]

Merely adding axioms is not proof.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Merely adding axioms is not proof.

Except if they're necessary axioms to make the reasoning consistent and free from contradictions.

[alancalverd]

If you add enough "necessary axioms", you can end up believing whatever made them necessary. Hence religion, a flat earth supported on turtles, and other kinds of foolishness.

Better to start with observations.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Good moral rules should encourage good behaviors and discourage bad behaviors. The rules act as shortcut to distinguish between good and bad behaviors, so the conscious agents can save computational resources and time to make decisions. The Pareto principle states that for many outcomes, roughly 80% of consequences come from 20% of causes (the “vital few”). In a way, it also act as data compression process.
If a moral rule doesn't give those kind of results, it might be the time to replace it with a new one. Here's an example.

Police officers give people tickets for speeding or running a stop sign, but there’s another reason that people are getting pulled over: It’s the dirty little secret called the quota system.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The point is mostly off topic. A universal moral standard need not 'exist' if it is a standard for a universe whose existence isn't distinct from its nonexistence. I deny such a standard, but that stance isn't a function of my stance on the existence of things.

If we are presented with two different moral standards. Is there a way to tell which one is universally better? If not, why make any moral standard in the first place?
Universal moral standard is based on universal terminal goal. What's your position in this concept?

I can't imagine a better alternative because I don't accept that there is or should be a UTG. Abandoning the concept makes decisions a lot easier.

What's your position regarding the universal terminal goal? Which point(s) is/are unacceptable for you?

Here is the truth table for universal terminal goal.

1 in the left column means that there is something called a goal, while 0 means denial of it.
The middle column classifies the goals in time domain. 1 means there are terminal goals, while 0 means all goals are temporary/instrumental.
The right column classifies the goals in spatial domain. 1 means there are universal goals, while 0 means all goals are partial.
x in the bottom row means that their values are meaningless, since the existence of goals have already been denied.

Those who take the position of the first row think that there exist a universal terminal goal.
Those who take the position of the second row think that there exist some terminal goals, but they vary between different parts of the universe.
Those who take the position of the third row think that there exist a universal goal, but they change with time.
Those who take the position of the fourth row think that there exist some goals, but none of them are terminal nor universal.
Those who take the position of the fifth row think that goals simply don't exist.

Doing something without thinking about its consequences first is indeed easier. But you are increasing your risk of having regrets. Establishing moral standards and rules are some efforts to minimize regrets.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.

We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
From those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.

I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video:

Trolley problem is often used to explore human moral values. But even the most basic case produced disagreements among people. Can it be modified to reduce disagreement? Hopefully it can help us finding a common ground to finally construct a universal moral standard.

Here's the basic version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.

You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?