[alancalverd]

The trick of politics is to persuade people that things could be better if they voted for you. On balance, there is no evidence to support this, though things did improve a lot in the UK in 1945. It is difficult to see how any recruit from the chaotic suburbs of London or the godless wastelands of Birmingham to the well-ordered beatings and sex slavery of ISIS has actually benefitted from the experience.

[alancalverd]

A species is a sample.

No, it's a subset. A subset cannot be a good sample since it is by definition atypical.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The trick of politics is to persuade people that things could be better if they voted for you. On balance, there is no evidence to support this, though things did improve a lot in the UK in 1945. It is difficult to see how any recruit from the chaotic suburbs of London or the godless wastelands of Birmingham to the well-ordered beatings and sex slavery of ISIS has actually benefitted from the experience.

What makes you think that life under ISIS is well ordered?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A species is a sample.

No, it's a subset. A subset cannot be a good sample since it is by definition atypical.

A genus and subspecies are also subsets. Why pick species specifically?

[alancalverd]

What makes you think that life under ISIS is well ordered?

Slight ambiguity in the word "well". Scientifically, well-ordered means that everything is structured and predictable. The hyphen is significant: the sequence of events in an efficient bomb is well-ordered, leading to maximum entropy.  Whilst the behavior of ISIS members seems to follow a consistent pattern written by the parasite in charge, it cannot be described as ordered with anyone's wellness in mind.

[alancalverd]

Why pick species specifically?

You did, in #2284 above

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Why pick species specifically?

You did, in #2284 above

It seems like you forgot what you've said previously.

Should we collaborate to organize mass suicide to give the best thing to earth?
Why, or why not?

Because what is best for the rest of the planet is  not best for us. That is the whole point of this discussion: species are competitive for resources, and pollute their environment with their waste products. 

[alancalverd]

Not sure what your point is here. Mine is that there cannot be a universal goal if every living thing (or every species) is in competition with at least one other. The best you can hope for is coexistence by orthogonal exploitation of the environment (Darwin's finches).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Not sure what your point is here. Mine is that there cannot be a universal goal if every living thing (or every species) is in competition with at least one other. The best you can hope for is coexistence by orthogonal exploitation of the environment (Darwin's finches).

Have you considered mutualistic symbiosis? Multicellular organisms are thought to be products of endosymbiosis. Social organisms are also symbiosis among many individuals.

Competition also exists between individuals in a species. Even between cells in an individual specimen.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any currently existing conscious being in the universe are products of the efforts done by conscious beings that have existed in the past, without exception. This pattern can be extrapolated to conscious beings that exist in the future. Hence we can say that it's a universal feature.
Any conscious being which don't share that universal feature are unlikely to have influence in the future.

[alancalverd]

Have you considered mutualistic symbiosis?

Mutually symbiotic organisms are rare and usually consume material that other species would find useful too. Collaboration may improve your competitiveness, but you are still competing! 

[alancalverd]

Any currently existing conscious being in the universe are products of the efforts done by conscious beings that have existed in the past, without exception.

So you think abiogenesis is impossible? That's an axiom of religion, not science.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Have you considered mutualistic symbiosis?

Mutually symbiotic organisms are rare and usually consume material that other species would find useful too. Collaboration may improve your competitiveness, but you are still competing! 

Every multicellular organism is a product of mutually symbiosis. Even unicellular eukaryotes are product of endosymbiosis. How rare are they?
Of course they will look extremely rare if compared to the whole mass of the observable universe.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any currently existing conscious being in the universe are products of the efforts done by conscious beings that have existed in the past, without exception.

So you think abiogenesis is impossible? That's an axiom of religion, not science.

What's the highest level of consciousness produced through  abiogenesis? Can you name an example?
Synthetic organisms are produced by efforts of humans, which are conscious beings.

[alancalverd]

What's the highest level of consciousness produced through  abiogenesis?

In your opinion, yourself, after many, many generations of evolution.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What's the highest level of consciousness produced through  abiogenesis?

In your opinion, yourself, after many, many generations of evolution.

Don't put your words into someone else's mouth.
Abiogenesis only had to produce chemical structure which can replicate in a suitable environment. The structure must be able to resist change to some degree, but not 100% resistant, otherwise evolution won't start.
Conscious beings capable of setting up and following moral standards must come from conscious beings that exist in the past. The transition from non-conscious beings to human level conscious beings happens gradually. Morality as we know it came much later in the process, with many less conscious beings contributed in the past. In turn, we (at least some of us) will contribute to the emergence of more advanced conscious beings in the future. Those who doesn't contribute positively will be deemed immoral by them, or at least irrelevant. Those who does contribute positively will be deemed moral by them. If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the future, which would make all efforts in the past meaningless.

This is how evolutionary process can be modeled, with some extrapolation to predict the future.

I found this tweet, which is in line with this thread.

Naval (@naval) tweeted at 0:23 PM on Thu, Dec 30, 2021:
Evolution only has to use genes to get to a universal computer species, and then the whole system switches to memetic evolution.

The product of memetic evolution, aka knowledge, allows that species to modify genes and its environment directly after that.
(https://twitter.com/naval/status/1476423727529152512?t=6AXZpa9ng0ol9tBDUzCFYg&s=03)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can't agree on what's good and bad without determining what the ultimate goal is.

Life is Meaningless if God Doesn't Exist | Dennis Prager Casually DEBUNKED

Timestamps:
00:00 Just a Fruit
02:27 Just a Fluke
17:41 Just Immoral

[alancalverd]

Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad. No ultimate goal needed, and no universal goal possible in a finite environment.

Without someone to determine and appreciate a meaning, anything is meaningless. OK, no god => no meaning to life in general, but so what?

[alancalverd]

If the immoral wins, there would be no conscious being in the future

A is immoral and impregnates B's wife. B is moral but sterile. Immoral wins and there is a conscious next generation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Good deeds make people happy. Bad deeds make people sad.

There are notable exceptions, like gladiator show and bull fighting. Someone were happy seeing 9/11.
So,  which people are legitimately happy?