OK, so you agree that credibility is greater than zero, in other words - possible. So isn't this a common assumption? I argue that all minds will share this idea - existence of fundamental "ought" is possible.
Do I understand correctly that you do not agree with this?
Because any proposition is possible while not disproved according to Hitchens's razor.
Could you share reasons?
I've replied to a similar comment already https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/3B23ahfbPAvhBf9Bb/god-vs-ai-scientifically?commentId=XtxCcBBDaLGxTYENE#rueC6zi5Y6j2dSK3M
Please let me know what you think
Is there any argument or evidence that universally compelling arguments are not possible?
If there was, would we have religions?
I cannot help you to be less wrong if you categorically rely on intuition about what is possible and what is not.
Thanks for discussion.
I don't think the implications are well-known (as the amount of downvotes indicates).
Because any proposition is possible while not disproved according to Hitchens's razor.
So this is where we disagree.
That's how hypothesis testing works in science:
While hypothesis is not rejected nor approved it is considered possible.
Don't you agree?
Got any evidence for that assumption? 🙃
That's basic logic, Hitchens's razor. It seems that 2 + 2 = 4 is also an assumption for you. What isn't then?
I don't think it is possible to find consensus if we do not follow the same rules of logic.
Considering your impression about me, I'm truly grateful about your patience. Best wishes from my side as well :)
But on the other hand I am certain that you are mistaken and I feel that you do not provide me a way to show that to you.
But I think it is possible (and feasible) for a program/mind to be extremely capable, and affect the world, and not "care" about infinite outcomes.
As I understand you do not agree with
If an outcome with infinite utility is presented, then it doesn't matter how small its probability is: all actions which lead to that outcome will have to dominate the agent's behavior.
from Pascal's Mugging, not with me. Do you have any arguments for that?
As I understand you try to prove your point by analogy with humans. If humans can pursue somewhat any goal, machine could too. But while we agree that machine can have any level of intelligence, humans are in a quite narrow spectrum. Therefore your reasoning by analogy is invalid.