[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Yes, it is to give people awareness of the universal moral standard based on the universal terminal goal,

I think you need to prove an existence theorem for both entities, then describe them, before attempting to broadcast them. 

What would it take to convince you of their existence?

[alancalverd]

Any proof or demonstration of the universality of either, beginning with a statement of what you claim to be universal.

"Proof by assertion" is not permissible, and so far all you have done is to assert, not demonstrate.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Any proof or demonstration of the universality of either, beginning with a statement of what you claim to be universal.

"Proof by assertion" is not permissible, and so far all you have done is to assert, not demonstrate.

Univesal moral standard is derived from the universal terminal goal. Hence its important to define the latter first.
I offered
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction
I started by definition of goal.
Then identify it's universal prerequisites, which is the existence of consciousness.

[alancalverd]

IIRC you think the preservation of consciousness is a goal, but you don't have a definition of consciousness that has universal validity. So it might be your goal, or even shared by those who accede to your definition, but may not be universal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

IIRC you think the preservation of consciousness is a goal, but you don't have a definition of consciousness that has universal validity. So it might be your goal, or even shared by those who accede to your definition, but may not be universal.

Here's my video explaining how I defined consciousness, in the context of searching for the universal terminal goal.

Universal Utopia 3 : Defining Consciousness

Defining consciousness as the core concept in the universal terminal goal using only the requirements from the phrase and some basic knowledge of computational process.

If you have any idea to improve it, please let me know.

There's consequences or implications for those who deny the existence of a universal moral standard. It means that they are either a moral nihilist who thinks that there is no moral standard at all, or a moral relativist who thinks that there are only local and/or temporal moral standards.

[alancalverd]

You haven't really differentiated between consciousness and living. One characteristic of living is homeostasis: actively defending the current state of an organism. This meets all your criteria of knowing the past and working towards a future goal.

Your "cell differentiation" model implies that consciousness is a characteristic of parts of an organism communicating with one another. The question then is whether a single-celled organism qualifies as conscious as it has distinct parts that need to work together to maintain homeostasis. This draws a neat line between living things and viruses, which don't exhibit active homeostasis, but it means that every organic entity apart from a virus is conscious.

And there's your dilemma: different conscious beings have different and often competing goals, so there can't be a universal goal or moral standard.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You haven't really differentiated between consciousness and living.

A sleeping person is living. But he is not usually called conscious. In my definition of consciousness, he has low level of consciousness, but not zero.
Similar things happen with a fetus, insects, and trees.
On the other hand, embodied AI agents may not pass the definition of living. But they can be conscious, IMO. They can even have a higher consciousness level than average humans.
Can you see the difference?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And there's your dilemma: different conscious beings have different and often competing goals, so there can't be a universal goal or moral standard.

That's exactly why we need a universal moral standard.
Local moral standards might be simpler and easier to follow. But they need to be evaluated from time to time whether or not they are aligned with the universal moral standard.
If those who accept the universal moral standard someday find some conscious agents whose goals are misaligned from the universal moral standard, it's their duty to try to correct/realign them. For example, when you find your bus driver is driving while drunk, you should stop him, and then find some way to go to your destinations more safely by considering some possible options and choose the best solution.
Making corrections requires us to know the correct answers.

The universal terminal goal is required to evaluate moral decisions scientifically. Without it, science would be useless to discuss moral questions. It won't be able to distinguish between right and wrong because everything can be both, depending on the moral standard used.

[alancalverd]

How would you "correct" the lion that wants to kill an impala?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

How would you "correct" the lion that wants to kill an impala?

What makes you think that the lion is about to do the wrong thing which needs correction?

https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/nature/article/10-cool-reasons-to-save-lions#:~:text=Removing%20one%20species%20can%20weaken,would%20become%20a%20sandy%20desert.

Every species is important to the health of an ecosystem. Removing one species can weaken a habitat, but if a keystone species is removed, an entire ecosystem could collapse. If large predators such as lions disappeared, herd populations would balloon, and grazers would eat up the grass. The savanna would become a sandy desert.

[alancalverd]

If you think it is never wrong for A to kill B, you have the basis of a universal moral moral standard: "anything is acceptable".

If you don't, then you have to apply different moral standards according to species or circumstances, so you don't have a universal standard.

It looks as though your moral standard is tending towards "whatever preserves the stasis of the ecosystem". Problem is that the ecosystem cannot be static because the universe is evolving.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you think it is never wrong for A to kill B, you have the basis of a universal moral moral standard: "anything is acceptable".

If you don't, then you have to apply different moral standards according to species or circumstances, so you don't have a universal standard.

It looks as though your moral standard is tending towards "whatever preserves the stasis of the ecosystem". Problem is that the ecosystem cannot be static because the universe is evolving.

Unless we have a perfect knowledge of the universe like Laplace demon, our future prediction is probabilistic. But the universal moral standard still apply. It asks us to make decisions which are predicted to maximize the chance to achieve the universal terminal goal.
Moral rules are useful for making moral decisions more efficiently and quickly, while still give desired results in most cases.
I prefer functionality over shapes and forms. Stasis of ecosystem is just one way to preserve consciousness. But geology and astronomy have told us about catastrophic events which were impossible for us to stop, at least with our current technology. Hence, there are something else we need to do to achieve the universal terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

But the universal moral standard still apply. It asks us to make decisions which are predicted to maximize the chance to achieve the universal terminal goal.

And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.

You have posited arbitrary goals and standards and I have repeatedly pointed out that these were not and could not be universal or achievable.

[Origin]

And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.

Yep, he's been going in circles for 180 pages.  A compete waste of time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You have posited arbitrary goals and standards and I have repeatedly pointed out that these were not and could not be universal or achievable.

It's not arbitrary. It's the most universal goal can be logically conceived. You can start from scratch and construct the universal terminal goal from word by word definition. You can also start from any arbitrary goal, then subtract every requirement or restriction not necessary for it to be a goal. Either way, they lead you to the same thing, i.e. the universal terminal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

And you have still failed to define or prove the existence of either.

Yep, he's been going in circles for 180 pages.  A compete waste of time.

My answer is already settled when I put the best answer mark which you can find in the first page. If you are too lazy to click links more than once, here it is.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=75380.msg647114#msg647114
My subsequent posts here are my attempt to apply the universal moral standard in real life, and answer questions from other members.
My target audience are people who are willing and able to learn. But it's also important to provide a moral standard universal enough for Future AGI to follow and apply. Hopefully this thread can somehow find a way to be a part of training data set for those AI models sooner rather than laterlater, before they get too powerful and cause more damage to the society.

[Origin]

My answer is already settled when I put the best answer mark which you can find in the first page

Thanks for that.  So the best answer to your question is on page 88.  I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Thanks for that.  So the best answer to your question is on page 88.  I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.

Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism. Which one describes you best?

[Origin]

Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism.

This is just your belief. 
I still didn't see a universal moral standard or a universal goal in post 88.

Which one describes you best?

Neither.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Without a universal moral standard, we are left with nihilism and moral relativism.

This is just your belief. 
I still didn't see a universal moral standard or a universal goal in post 88.

Which one describes you best?

Neither.

I don't know if it's just me, but IMO, you need to learn more about logic if you want to contribute to society. Perhaps Venn's diagram is a good starting point.