I did not downvote and did not engage, but I would have downvoted that post because it pattern-matched as something written by a bright dilettante [LW · GW]. Engaging with the subject matter and understanding where existing views come from instead of "I have this thought and it feels right!" is a classic newbie thing to do. The usual reply here used to be "read the sequences!" though most newcomers don't bother.

I missed that one and would have downvoted it too, because you seem confused.

You describe an agent as "without a goal", but then you insist that it cares about "not losing a lot".

Anyway, Rob Dost tried to explain [LW(p) · GW(p)] it to you, it didn't help. You seem to equivocate between an agent "without a goal" and an agent that "doesn't know whether it has a goal, and tries to figure it out".

You seem to argue that every agent has an inherent goal to figure out its goal. Why? Because you say so.

People tried to explain it to you, you don't get it, and when you get downvoted, you make a meta post, and demand scientific consensus or a review of your argument by moderators.

Please consider the possibility that you might simply be wrong.

Seeing as your original post already had many critical comments on it when you wrote this post, I'm curious to know in what sense you feel you were not provided with a reason for the downvotes? What about the discussion on that post was unsatisfying to you?