[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What do you mean by ' Universal ' ?

Applicable anytime, anywhere, for anyone.
"Anyone" here means conscious entities who can pursue goals, and they don't even have to be biological.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We can argue that nihilism and fatalism are also universal. But they are not particularly useful nor sustainable. Any conscious entities applying them consistently are likely to be defeated by entropy, and eventually led to extinction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Repugnant Conclusion (a philosophy paradox)

How to resolve a paradox

I describe two mistakes people often make when trying to solve paradoxes like Newcomb's Problem, Sleeping Beauty, and more.

[Zer0]

Your idea of ' Universalism " seems very broad, it includes Alot.

Approximately 8.7 million species.

Just a small group on a forum, at times, is not able to reach on a consensus or agreement.

I Wonder, how the hell will We All Species ever be able to agree fully.

Of course, We can be Hopeful!


By the way, have you heard of ' The Last Question ' by Isaac Asimov?
(available on Utube)


Just because Humans cannot solve Entropy, does not mean it is Unsolvable.
(Multivac)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your idea of ' Universalism " seems very broad, it includes Alot.

Approximately 8.7 million species.

It also includes species not yet existing, aliens, and AGI.

Just a small group on a forum, at times, is not able to reach on a consensus or agreement.

If an idea is truly universal, sooner or later someone will discover it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I Wonder, how the hell will We All Species ever be able to agree fully.

I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

As I mentioned earlier, establishing moral rules is an instrumental goal to help achieving the terminal goal. They help making frequent decisions to be more likely to align with the terminal goal while minimizing time and computational effort to make the decisions.
The moral standards are useful to address the less often cases where following moral rules blindly will bring unintended consequences instead.
Moral rules and standards are particularly needed when making decisions with almost equally unwanted consequences. When the consequences are similarly preferred, we can just decide randomly. The case of Buridan's ass isn't very realistic.

[Zer0]

Perhaps We would have to exclude Aliens.
Coz Time as currently understood, is Relative.

AGI on the other hand, might Change it's previous Decision half way thru the process of achieving the Goal.

I donno what to say about Species that are Not yet Existing.
Good Luck with That!

Not Everything wishes to Survive or Reproduce.

Besides, what about the Mentally unstable infant orphans in a state of comatose?
(Who decides on their behalf)

Imagine conducting an Election...
In which All votes have to say
' Yes '..
& Total number of Voters is Infinite.
(voting begins but never ends)

I'm not opposing the Universality ideology, just feel it's a bit Unrealistic, that's all.


ps - Buridan's Asses are for Real!
You'll find them braying on dating sites.
(hee-haw)

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Perhaps We would have to exclude Aliens.

It's understandable since we haven't found one. But we haven't explored much of observable universe. It's like scooping a spoon of sea water, and declare that fish don't exist because we catch none in the spoon.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AGI on the other hand, might Change it's previous Decision half way thru the process of achieving the Goal.

That's normal for any conscious entities. Decisions are made based on known conditions, which are expected to bring most desired outcome. When the conditions change, the decisions may change as well. Longer term goals are less likely to change.
The challenge is to select the correct terminal goal in the first place so there will be no reason to change it afterwards.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I donno what to say about Species that are Not yet Existing.
Good Luck with That!

Most species existing now weren't exist a billion years ago. Thus new species are the norm, rather than exception, especially for long term consideration.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Besides, what about the Mentally unstable infant orphans in a state of comatose?
(Who decides on their behalf)

IMO, those who are most affected by them, after considering all reasonable scenarios and take best available knowledge into account.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Imagine conducting an Election...
In which All votes have to say
' Yes '..
& Total number of Voters is Infinite.
(voting begins but never ends)

Voting should be considered as an instrumental goal. In your case, they should have considered better alternatives to achieve their terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'm not opposing the Universality ideology, just feel it's a bit Unrealistic, that's all.

Which part of it do you consider unrealistic?
Do you know of any more realistic alternatives?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

ps - Buridan's Asses are for Real!
You'll find them braying on dating sites.
(hee-haw)

Do they lead someone into celibacy?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It also includes species not yet existing, aliens, and AGI.

Let's not forget that our species is a descendant of ancestors who have gone extinct. Universal moral standards must have been applicable for them as well when they were living.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Repugnant Conclusion highlights a problem in an area of ethics which has become known as population ethics. The last three decades have witnessed an increasing philosophical interest in questions such as ?Is it possible to make the world a better place by creating additional happy people?? and ?Is there a moral obligation to have children??

It's generally accepted that population with too few members are not sustainable. On the other hand, if there are too many members for the available resources, the population is not sustainable either.
Populations with appropriate ethics can survive and thrive. Otherwise, they would have to learn the hard way.

[alancalverd]

I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.

More to the point, most of them regard us either as enemies or food. What moral right do we have to determine their goals, or to assume that they are the same as ours?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I'm not sure if we can communicate with unicellular organisms about our common goals. But it's pretty clear that they have instincts to survive and reproduce, which can be reasonably thought as the products of evolutionary process.

More to the point, most of them regard us either as enemies or food. What moral right do we have to determine their goals, or to assume that they are the same as ours?

It comes from our expectation that we know better than them about how the universe works, and we can better predict and affect future conditions, which makes us better equipped to achieve the universal goal. It's like how parents treat their little children. When they have outgrown us, the situation would be reversed.

[Zer0]

Perhaps We would have to exclude Aliens.

It's understandable since we haven't found one. But we haven't explored much of observable universe. It's like scooping a spoon of sea water, and declare that fish don't exist because we catch none in the spoon.

Including or Excluding would work provided We are sure of Their existence.

When it comes to Extraterrestrials, idc about Evidence, i am a Believer!

But We might have to leave them out of the decision making process based on the humongous scale of SpaceTime.

Communication will be a road block, arriving at an agreement a big hurdle & establishing Trust a major problem.

What if They refuse to co-operate with Us?