[Origin]

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.

I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.

I'm asking for your help.  Please point out the universal goal and universal moral standard that you said are in post 1749.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

I'm sorry but I saw no universal goal and no universal moral standard in that post.

I'm asking for your help.  Please point out the universal goal and universal moral standard that you said are in post 1749.

First, pay attention to the statement.

A universal moral standard must be based on the achievement of universal terminal goal.

Then go to this statement.

The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.

Any conscious entity who don't share this universal terminal goal will have no chance to survive into the distant future.

[alancalverd]

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

Who we?

Why does it matter?

If you just apply my everyday moral tests (would you do it to your nearest and dearest? would you be happy if I did it to you? ) to everyday actions we can live a happy life and pursue our own goals, thus adding to the knowledge and happiness of others (apart from priests, politicians and philosophers, of course).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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

Who we?

Why does it matter?

Any conscious entity who can understand the concept of their own consciousness.
Because it will determine which conscious entities will likely exist in the future.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If you just apply my everyday moral tests (would you do it to your nearest and dearest? would you be happy if I did it to you? ) to everyday actions we can live a happy life and pursue our own goals, thus adding to the knowledge and happiness of others (apart from priests, politicians and philosophers, of course).

Can a nihilist follow your rules?
Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?
Can future AGI follow your rules?
The exceptions you've already acknowledged show that your rules are not universal.

[Origin]

The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.

181 pages to explain "the terminal goal" that people don't want to die.  Staying alive is a huge driver for all life, it has been bred into us by evolution.  The drive to stay alive is to facilitate the actual goal in life, which is to reproduce.

I think the goal of sentient beings is something equally obvious which is to be happy.

I noticed you never clearly stated your universal moral standard but I assume it is something like "don't kill sentient beings".

I think the universal moral standard to live by is the 'golden rule'. 

[Origin]

The exceptions you've already acknowledged show that your rules are not universal.

That makes no sense.  Your saying that if someone doesn't follow the rules then the rules aren't universal, that would mean there are no universal rules at all.  You said "The only similarity applicable to every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future."  That is clearly false since people choose to end there lives all the time.  As you pointed out if there is an exception then the rule is not universal.

[alancalverd]

Any conscious entity who can understand the concept of their own consciousness.

Well that excludes me, since, like everyone else,  I have no idea what consciousness means. Apart, of course, from philosophers, each of whom knows exactly what it means and why all the others are wrong.

[alancalverd]

Can a nihilist follow your rules?
Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?
Can future AGI follow your rules?

They can, and if they choose not to, they are acting immorally. Just like the Highway Code, the Laws of Cricket, and any other set of rules. The only universal rule that cannot be broken is ΔS > 0.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Can a nihilist follow your rules?
Can a sadomasochist follow your rules?
Can future AGI follow your rules?

They can, and if they choose not to, they are acting immorally. Just like the Highway Code, the Laws of Cricket, and any other set of rules. The only universal rule that cannot be broken is ΔS > 0.

Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.

[Origin]

Hamdani's universal terminal goal:

every conscious being, regardless of their shape, form, size, and ingredients, is that they want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future.

Hamdani says one requirement is that there are no exceptions to the 'goal'.

The exceptions you've already acknowledged show that your rules are not universal.

Approximately 700,000 people kill themselves in a year.  These people do not "want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future".
There are almost one million exceptions each year to your universal goal, therefore by YOUR OWN criteria it clearly is NOT a universal goal.

Well maybe in the next 180 pages you can come up with a real terminal goal.

I actually can give you a goal that has no exceptions.  The terminal goal of all sentient entities is death.  Ta-da.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   I also never really was sure what the terminal goal was supposed to be but the answer is closely related to a simpler question:

    What is the purpose of life?

That one's fairly obvious.

    The purpose of life is to hydrogenate Carbon Dioxide.      Methane has a higher entropy than CO₂ but there is no simple chemical reaction that will take CO₂ to methane without passing through a lower entropy intermediate stage.   Life seems to be an efficient way for the universe to get to CH₄ from CO₂.

[An idea originally presented by Michael Russell (and others possibly),  NASA jet propulsion labs]

Best Wishes.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.

In my previous post, I've described the differences and similarities between standards and rules. Standards are aimed at consistency, while rules are aimed at practicality. Standards are more generally applicable. In most cases, good rules produce the same output calculations as standards, while using less computational resources, including time and energy. But in cases where they're known to have different results, we should follow the standards. While in cases where the results of calculated output by standards are not known due to incomplete information or time constrain, we can use the rules.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Approximately 700,000 people kill themselves in a year.  These people do not "want to extend the existence of consciousness further into the future".
There are almost one million exceptions each year to your universal goal, therefore by YOUR OWN criteria it clearly is NOT a universal goal.

You've come to a wrong conclusion because you ignore some important parts. The word terminal emphasizes the goal is set for the most distant future can be reasonably conceived. The word universal emphasizes the future conscious entities are not restricted to any forms, shapes, or ingredients. The word goal emphasizes that it's actively pursued.

I mentioned in one of my video,  the first knowledge is the existence of a conscious entity, at the time when it's thinking about its own existence. Its existence in the past and future are hypotheses need further justifications.

Preservation of individual self is the most local goal. To make it more universal, it must be extended to include a larger extent.

There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.

Self sacrifice to free up resources to be used by the larger society can be a stable strategy. Although it would be better if they can improve themselves to be more useful for their society and bring a net positive impact.

[Origin]

There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.

Yes, these are many of the exceptions to your universal goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I actually can give you a goal that has no exceptions.  The terminal goal of all sentient entities is death.  Ta-da.

Are you actively pursuing that goal?
How effectively and efficiently is your effort to achieve that goal?
If you can answer my questions above, it would imply that you are not so effective in pursuing that goal.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There are some known reasons why someone stops pursuing their own individual existence. Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades. To be a stable strategy, altruistic behaviors must result in the entities being saved are more likely to survive in the future than the ones making the self sacrifice. Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.

Yes, these are many of the exceptions to your universal goal.

Adherence to the universal terminal goal is universally required for any conscious entity who will exist in the future. Those who actively obstruct its achievement are called immoral, because they violate the universal moral standard. The rest of us need to prevent them from getting the power to execute their obstruction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

What is the purpose of life?

That one's fairly obvious.

    The purpose of life is to hydrogenate Carbon Dioxide.      Methane has a higher entropy than CO2 but there is no simple chemical reaction that will take CO2 to methane without passing through a lower entropy intermediate stage.   Life seems to be an efficient way for the universe to get to CH4 from CO2.

The universal terminal goal should not be restricted by arbitrary chemical composition. The definition of goal itself should have put all the necessary restrictions.
Some life forms don't inhale CO2 to produce CH4. This alone is enough to reject your proposition.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let me remind you the case of Charles Whitman. He didn't violate your rules, yet what he did are commonly seen as immoral.

In my previous post, I've described the differences and similarities between standards and rules. Standards are aimed at consistency, while rules are aimed at practicality. Standards are more generally applicable. In most cases, good rules produce the same output calculations as standards, while using less computational resources, including time and energy. But in cases where they're known to have different results, we should follow the standards. While in cases where the results of calculated output by standards are not known due to incomplete information or time constrain, we can use the rules.

The mistake made by deontologists is confusing between moral rules and moral standards. Not lying and not killing are just rules, albeit in most cases are aligned with the universal moral standard. But there are widely known exceptions to these rules.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

This video presents a real life test for our moral rules and standards.

Alabama Tortures Man To Death For 22 Minutes | The Kyle Kulinski Show

In another thread I discussed the matter technically. The painful suffocation symptoms are likely caused by inability to properly exhale the CO2 built up from the blood. I predict it won't happen if the mask were equipped with two non-return valves to allow nitrogen inhalation and CO2 exhalation.