0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Are you actively pursuing that goal?
How effectively and efficiently is your effort to achieve that 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.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 01:31:54Are you actively pursuing that goal?Yes, everyday I get 1 day closer to the ultimate goal.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 01:31:54How effectively and efficiently is your effort to achieve that goal?I am being extremely efficient and effective because I know with 100% confidence the terminal goal will be reached.
2 points:1. These immoral people who violate the universal moral standard prove (according to you) that your universal terminal goal is incorrect.
2. According to you one of these immoral segments of people are parents that would sacrifice their lives to save their children. I have to say that doesn't seem like something I personally would call an immoral act.
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.
By definition, the purpose of morality is to distinguish between good and bad behaviors.
Perhaps you can use similar method to improve your understanding of what I wrote.
You identify some examples of people who are not following the 'universal terminal goal' and are therefore immoral. such as; Some parents sacrifice their own lives to save their children. Some soldiers do it to save their comrades.I disagree that these people are immoral.
Otherwise, it won't be stable, like a healthy adult sacrificing himself to save his old parent who's having terminal illnesses.
Some life forms don't inhale CO2 to produce CH4. This alone is enough to reject your proposition.
This discussion is unnecessary anyway since by your own definition you have proven that your universal terminal goal is not truly universal (there are exception to the goal).
Life, upto and including human beings, might just be a way to carry out a chemical process.
Based on the advance towards AGI, which brings us closer to singularity, some researchers started to think that most processes will be electronic instead of chemical.We are here as a stepping stone which will make AGI possible. In retrospect, our fish ancestors were stepping stones which have made us possible.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 17:49:57Based on the advance towards AGI, which brings us closer to singularity, some researchers started to think that most processes will be electronic instead of chemical.We are here as a stepping stone which will make AGI possible. In retrospect, our fish ancestors were stepping stones which have made us possible.That's an interesting terminal goal, for life to create an AI and then life dies out.
The proposition wasn't mine, it was credited to M. Russell at NASA.
I said that it's a stable strategy, which makes it aligned with the universal terminal goal, which means it's morally good.My example of immoral decision for not being a stable strategy is.
I don't know how you can keep getting things reversed. But I won't assume malice if it can still be explained by ignorance.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 16:54:12I said that it's a stable strategy, which makes it aligned with the universal terminal goal, which means it's morally good.My example of immoral decision for not being a stable strategy is.Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/02/2024 16:54:12I don't know how you can keep getting things reversed. But I won't assume malice if it can still be explained by ignorance.Bla, bla, bla. So much wasted band width...
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.
How could exhalation of co2 be stopped?, I don't see how it could. As you rightly point out anoxia is not unpleasant and is quite different from suffocation which can only be implemented by mechanically stopping the breathing. Certainly if I was due for capital punishment I would opt for nitrogen anoxia in preference to the electric chair or the firing squad.