Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[godelian]

The above list is not published anywhere but it is valid and undeniable by an average person based on basic rationality, critical thinking, wisdom and common sense.

No, that is justification by word salad. Instead, you need to take the genetic material of a human and mechanically read the transcript of natural morality out of it. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that the unpublished and unreviewed list that you have haphazardly concocted is natural morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above list is not published anywhere but it is valid and undeniable by an average person based on basic rationality, critical thinking, wisdom and common sense.

No, that is justification by word salad. Instead, you need to take the genetic material of a human and mechanically read the transcript of natural morality out of it. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that the unpublished and unreviewed list that you have haphazardly concocted is natural morality.

It is so easy to use the "word salad" excuse which is nonsense.

Instead, you need to take the genetic material of a human and mechanically read the transcript of natural morality out of it.

This is very stupid and unintelligent.
Has any transcripts been produced from the genetic codes?

Go through the list and tell me why each has no relation to morality and natural morality.
Explain why it cannot be natural morality?

'ougthnotness' of
-no humans to kill humans
-no genocides
-no rapes
-no incest
-no harm -mind to serious
-no violence
-no torture and killing of babies for pleasure
-no evil acts of any sorts.

If you deny the above has anything to do with natural morality, then all humans can commit the above evils?

On the other hand, you have to agree with your God's Q5:33, i.e.
it is an Islamic moral obligation that
believers can kill any non-believer[s] and others who commit the slightest threats to Islam?

[godelian]

Has any transcripts been produced from the genetic codes?

According to its definition, natural morality is preprogrammed into our biological firmware. There is only one way to prove that a particular list of rules is truly built in our genetic materials. You must be able read this list out from the genetic materials.

Everything else is merely justification by word salad.

So, since you are so sure that your list of rules is natural morality, feel free to demonstrate that you can read it from the genetic materials. Why do you always insist on justifying your claims by mere word salad? Why would anybody believe your word salad and not someone else's? It is just too easy to produce word salads. That is why a mere word salad cannot be accepted as evidence for anything.

[Belinda]

That is not a list of moral rules. I am not asking for "neurons". I am asking for a list with items such as "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", and so on. Natural morality contains that kind of rules. Now I just want the complete list. You say that these rules are "evident". So, where can we find this list?

Perhaps Veritas A bases his belief in natural morality upon man as an animal that is alienated from its origins in mammalian societies. The rules of mammalian societies include care of the young, care of the injured and sick, colonising geographical areas where food and water are to be had, mating according to species whether monogamous or otherwise, foods to be consumed according to species, progress in acculturalisation (sorry!)according to species, obedience to the demands of circadian rhythms, and so forth.

The above argument may be countered by our knowing that human nature is cultural not genetic (except in the very very long term or artificially engineered).

Human nature [what is essentially and uniquely a human] is fundamentally genetic as encoded in the DNA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nat ... erstanding

What is cultural is Nurture not nature, but with the possibility of culture effecting and adapted as 'nature' in the long run, say, over 100K or million of years.

The morality function represented by its neural correlates is inherent within human nature; on the basis of optimality of existing constraints the moral function is not active within the majority of humans.
It is just like the intelligence function where there is trend of improvements since 200K years ago to the present to be exponentially expanded with AI.

The moral function due to current constraints and optimality is evolving and improving very slowly on average but there are already signs it has improved since since 200K years ago to the present. Take for example the improvement in Chattel [ownership] Slavery which is banned in all nations at present.
Also note Steven Pinker's

The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined is a 2011 book by Steven Pinker, in which the author argues that violence in the world has declined both in the long run and in the short run and suggests explanations as to why this has occurred.[1] The book uses data documenting declining violence across time and geography.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

The serious problem with morality related to Islam is the moral dictates of Islam are carved in stones, i.e. the Quran with its inherent malignant evil elements is immutable. As such Islam suppresses the evolution and progress of the inherent natural moral function within its believers.

In contrast within Christianity, morality is driven by its Ideal pacifist maxim, i.e. love all even enemies, give the other cheek.
As such, it give a lot of room for the natural moral function to improve towards the impossible-to-achieve ideal where nevertheless, the striving naturally motivates gradual progress.

It is not moral to be an Islamic apologetic and be an ostrich to its glaringly inherent evil which is so evident via its true believers.

But you are simply wrong about cultures of belief and cultures of technology taking a long long time to adapt to. Cultural adaptation is very swift compared with genetic adaptation. Cultural adaptation may take place between one generation and the next one: cultural adaptation may take place with the influence of technical or ideas geniuses : cultural adaptation may take place after brain-washing or more subtle politicking: the more novel culture is then transferred from parent to child and by means of formal education.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Has any transcripts been produced from the genetic codes?

According to its definition, natural morality is preprogrammed into our biological firmware. There is only one way to prove that a particular list of rules is truly built in our genetic materials. You must be able read this list out from the genetic materials.

Everything else is merely justification by word salad.

So, since you are so It sure that your list of rules is natural morality, feel free to demonstrate that you can read it from the genetic materials. Why do you always insist on justifying your claims by mere word salad? Why would anybody believe your word salad and not someone else's? It is just too easy to produce word salads. That is why a mere word salad cannot be accepted as evidence for anything.

This is relatively [assuming you are an average Joe] one of the most stupid idea, i.e. that it is possible to read off a transcripts of related knowledge from a transcript of genetic codes.

Surely it is undeniable the human digestive system is coded somewhere with the DNA.
But how it is possible to produce therefrom a transcripts of essential nutrients a human should take into its body to function normally?

It is undeniable as inferred from the empirical evidences of human activities [anthropology], all humans has a moral function, e.g. morality is linked with empathy which is linked to mirror neurons in the brains of the higher primates and humans.

I am sure of the lists of natural morality which anyone can inferred from human activities as we are at present sure of what are the essential nutrients for humans to function normally.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326132
The six essential nutrients are vitamins, minerals, protein, fats, water, and carbohydrates. People need to consume these nutrients from dietary sources for proper body function.

[godelian]

Surely it is undeniable the human digestive system is coded somewhere with the DNA.
But how it is possible to produce therefrom a transcripts of essential nutrients a human should take into its body to function normally?

It is indeed undeniable that the human digestive system is coded somewhere with the DNA.

However, that does not mean that any arbitrary description matches what is encoded in the genetic material. The only way to prove that your description matches exactly what is genetically encoded, is by proving that you can mechanically read it out of there.

It is undeniable as inferred from the empirical evidences of human activities [anthropology], all humans has a moral function, e.g. morality is linked with empathy which is linked to mirror neurons in the brains of the higher primates and humans.

Wrong.

Some behavior is innate while other behavior is acquired through learning. Natural morality is the innate part only.

It is only by mechanically reading it out of the genetic materials that you can prove what exactly is innate.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Surely it is undeniable the human digestive system is coded somewhere with the DNA.
But how it is possible to produce therefrom a transcripts of essential nutrients a human should take into its body to function normally?

It is indeed undeniable that the human digestive system is coded somewhere with the DNA.

However, that does not mean that any arbitrary description matches what is encoded in the genetic material. The only way to prove that your description matches exactly what is genetically encoded, is by proving that you can mechanically read it out of there.

Again, this is a very stupid expectation, i.e. the possibility of mechanically reading a specific list of essential nutrients from the genetic codes.
What are essential nutrients for the body to function normally is based on empirical testing and verification.

It is undeniable as inferred from the empirical evidences of human activities [anthropology], all humans has a moral function, e.g. morality is linked with empathy which is linked to mirror neurons in the brains of the higher primates and humans.

Wrong.
Some behavior is innate while other behavior is acquired through learning. Natural morality is the innate part only.
It is only by mechanically reading it out of the genetic materials that you can prove what exactly is innate.

Even if it is innate, there is no way we can mechanically read off a list of its details from the genetic code.
Can we mechanically read a list of phobias from the genetic code?
Show me where it is possible?

Just as we cannot mechanically read off the list of essential nutrients of an inferred metabolic and digestive system, we cannot mechanically read off the list of moral oughtnotness.
However, we can infer them from empirical evidences of human activities.

[godelian]

Even if it is innate, there is no way we can mechanically read off a list of its details from the genetic code.
Show me where it is possible?

That is exactly why your unpublished and unreviewed list of innate moral rules is a speculative word salad. It is not possible to read it out of the genetic material. Hence, it is not possible to precisely confirm what exactly is innate versus what is learned.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Even if it is innate, there is no way we can mechanically read off a list of its details from the genetic code.
Show me where it is possible?

That is exactly why your unpublished and unreviewed list of innate moral rules is a speculative word salad. It is not possible to read it out of the genetic material. Hence, it is not possible to precisely confirm what exactly is innate versus what is learned.

I have already argued,
just as we cannot mechanically read from the genetic codes, the list of phobia or essential nutrients but we can infer them from empirical evidences of human activities as human nature, so too, we can infer for the moral function and list of natural moral axioms.
Why is this not possible?

"that genocide of humans is evil" is word salad?

it is likely word salad to Islam because genocide is not evil but is permitted by its God [Q5:33].

[godelian]

Why is this not possible?

You cannot be sure if it is innate or learned.

"that genocide of humans is evil" is word salad?

Innate or learned?

It is the list of rules that you believe to constitute natural morality that is just a word salad.

You somehow believe that your haphazardly concocted word salad exactly matches the biological firmware built into humans.

You believe that you can achieve that kind of magic without being able to read or reverse engineer the source code of the biological firmware, which is written in a programming language that nobody on this planet even understands.

Fine, you believe in your own superpowers but why would anyone else believe in them?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why is this not possible?

You cannot be sure if it is innate or learned.

Why not?
From psychology and evolutionary psychology, we can infer whether it is innate or learned.

"that genocide of humans is evil" is word salad?

Innate or learned?

It is the list of rules that you believe to constitute natural morality that is just a word salad.

You somehow believe that your haphazardly concocted word salad exactly matches the biological firmware built into humans.

You believe that you can achieve that kind of magic without being able to read or reverse engineer the source code of the biological firmware, which is written in a programming language that nobody on this planet even understands.

Fine, you believe in your own superpowers but why would anyone else believe in them?

Nope, the moral maxim genocide is evil is inferred as innate is inferred from sciences of anthropology, psychology and evolutionary psychology.

There are loads of research to claim the innateness of morality, e.g.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

[Belinda]

Why is this not possible?

You cannot be sure if it is innate or learned.

Why not?
From psychology and evolutionary psychology, we can infer whether it is innate or learned.

"that genocide of humans is evil" is word salad?

Innate or learned?

It is the list of rules that you believe to constitute natural morality that is just a word salad.

You somehow believe that your haphazardly concocted word salad exactly matches the biological firmware built into humans.

You believe that you can achieve that kind of magic without being able to read or reverse engineer the source code of the biological firmware, which is written in a programming language that nobody on this planet even understands.

Fine, you believe in your own superpowers but why would anyone else believe in them?

Nope, the moral maxim genocide is evil is inferred as innate is inferred from sciences of anthropology, psychology and evolutionary psychology.

There are loads of research to claim the innateness of morality, e.g.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Indeed the social animal, and humans are social animals, is innately equipped with a sense of fairness. However that sense of fairness must be nurtured by whoever rears the child. If the child is reared by sadists he will become a sadist unless he subsequently learns different.

Not humans only but other mammal species too are taught by significant others. The canine bitch with pups will teach them how to behave , even to the extent of learning the basics of herding sheep or defending others.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You cannot be sure if it is innate or learned.

Why not?
From psychology and evolutionary psychology, we can infer whether it is innate or learned.

Innate or learned?

It is the list of rules that you believe to constitute natural morality that is just a word salad.

You somehow believe that your haphazardly concocted word salad exactly matches the biological firmware built into humans.

You believe that you can achieve that kind of magic without being able to read or reverse engineer the source code of the biological firmware, which is written in a programming language that nobody on this planet even understands.

Fine, you believe in your own superpowers but why would anyone else believe in them?

Nope, the moral maxim genocide is evil is inferred as innate is inferred from sciences of anthropology, psychology and evolutionary psychology.

There are loads of research to claim the innateness of morality, e.g.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Indeed the social animal, and humans are social animals, is innately equipped with a sense of fairness. However that sense of fairness must be nurtured by whoever rears the child. If the child is reared by sadists he will become a sadist unless he subsequently learns different.

Not humans only but other mammal species too are taught by significant others. The canine bitch with pups will teach them how to behave , even to the extent of learning the basics of herding sheep or defending others.

Fairness in Animals's DNA: that remind me of this:
Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Frans de Waal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg

Humans are embedded with an innate/inherent moral functions with certain innate moral maxims. They are coded in the DNA and subsequent expressed in humans and as evident from empirical evidences, e.g. the link above.

Yes, there is a need for nurturing to refine these innate moral maxims in practice.
However, these inherent sets of neurons are embedded deep in the brain as innate and they are always there as they are unless damaged for some reasons.

In practice, the innate moral impulses has to go through various paths before they can motivate moral consciousness and actions.
If the subsequent impulses are hijacked by stronger and more dominant psychopathic neurons, then the person's inherent morality will not be expressed, thus ending as a sadist, murderer, violent or evil person.

What is critical here is where the inherent moral function and moral maxims are dominated and overridden by the more dominant terrific existential terror of hell related to religion, e.g. in Islam.
The option to believers within Islam is the immutable "commit the immoral Q5:33 [kill believers] or end up in hell"; to avoid hell which is more terrible, the inherent weaker moral function is suppressed by this threat of hell. This is why it is so evident there are so many supposedly goody-two-shoes suddenly appeared on TV as Islamic suicide bombers which surprised their families.

The seriousness of the danger of that religion is, if only 10% of believers' inherent moral function is weakened by the threat of hell, we have 150 million of potential evil laden believers. Even if it is 1% there is 15 millions of them and it only took 20++ to do a 911 .

In contrast, Christianity's "love even your enemies, do NOT kill or else end up in hell" default do not suppress the inherent moral functions but enable it to be nurtured to be more morally competent.
Because there is no suppression, even if Christians committed evil acts not as a Christian per-se but as a human, Christianity provide room for the sinful evil person [believer] to progress morally in future.

[godelian]

Why is this not possible?

You cannot be sure if it is innate or learned.

Why not?
From psychology and evolutionary psychology, we can infer whether it is innate or learned.

You can generally not distinguish precisely between innate and learned behavior without reverse engineering our biological firmware, which in turn cannot be done.

ChatGPT: Is it possible to distinguish precisely between behavior that is innate and behavior that is learned?

It is rarely possible to distinguish precisely between innate and learned behaviors because most behaviors exist on a continuum involving both genetic and environmental influences. The interplay between nature (innate factors) and nurture (learned experiences) complicates drawing a clear boundary. Here’s why precision is difficult:
...
Conclusion

Precision in distinguishing innate from learned behavior is rarely achievable because behaviors are complex, dynamic, and influenced by both biology and environment. Instead, researchers focus on understanding the relative contributions of genetic and experiential factors and how they interact over time.

The technology required to read the specifications of natural morality from the human genetic material does not exist.

That is why it is not possible to do what you think that you can do when you improvise and concoct a speculative list of the rules of natural morality. You simply do not have such superpowers.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You cannot be sure if it is innate or learned.

Why not?
From psychology and evolutionary psychology, we can infer whether it is innate or learned.

You can generally not distinguish precisely between innate and learned behavior without reverse engineering our biological firmware, which in turn cannot be done.

ChatGPT: Is it possible to distinguish precisely between behavior that is innate and behavior that is learned?

It is rarely possible to distinguish precisely between innate and learned behaviors because most behaviors exist on a continuum involving both genetic and environmental influences. The interplay between nature (innate factors) and nurture (learned experiences) complicates drawing a clear boundary. Here’s why precision is difficult:
...
Conclusion

Precision in distinguishing innate from learned behavior is rarely achievable because behaviors are complex, dynamic, and influenced by both biology and environment. Instead, researchers focus on understanding the relative contributions of genetic and experiential factors and how they interact over time.

The technology required to read the specifications of natural morality from the human genetic material does not exist.

That is why it is not possible to do what you think that you can do when you improvise and concoct a speculative list of the rules of natural morality. You simply do not have such superpowers.

You are misleading ChatGpt with the term 'precisely' as applicable in general.
The way you are constricting and adopting a narrow view generate constipation of knowledge in your brain.

Here is a better presentation from ChatGpt:

In studying whether there is natural morality Paul Bloom [link above] and others confine their studies to babies and infants that are less than 12 months old, thus not likely to be influenced by their environment.

ChatGpt Wrote:
The distinction between innate and learned traits often hinges on their origin and development:

Innate Traits are those present at birth or develop naturally through biological and genetic processes without requiring external learning or experience.
Learned Traits are acquired or developed through interaction with the environment, experience, or education.

Examples:
Innate Traits:
Reflexes: Automatic responses, such as a newborn's grasp reflex or sucking reflex.
Physical characteristics: Eye color, blood type, and natural hair texture.
Basic instincts: Fight-or-flight response, hunger, or the drive to reproduce.
Temperamental tendencies: Some aspects of personality, such as being more introverted or extroverted, are thought to have genetic underpinnings.

Learned Traits:
Language: Speaking a specific language is entirely dependent on the environment.
Cultural norms: Behaviors like greeting with a handshake or bowing.
Skill acquisition: Riding a bicycle, reading, or playing a musical instrument.
Social behavior: Sharing, taking turns, or observing table manners.

How to Differentiate Innate from Learned Traits:
1. Presence at Birth or Early Development
Innate traits are typically observable at birth or soon after (e.g., reflexes, basic facial expressions like crying or smiling).
Learned traits appear later and are influenced by interaction, imitation, or teaching.

2. Independence from Environment
Innate traits develop regardless of environmental influences. For example, children will crawl, walk, and develop basic emotions without needing to be taught.
Learned traits require environmental exposure or conditioning. For example, which language a child speaks depends on their upbringing.

3. Genetic Basis
Innate traits are genetically programmed and often shared across species (e.g., reflexes or the ability to experience fear).
Learned traits are not encoded in DNA and are often specific to cultural or individual experiences.

4. Universal vs. Variable
Innate traits are universal within a species (e.g., all humans are born with the capacity for emotions like joy or fear).
Learned traits vary widely (e.g., tastes in food or personal values).
Grey Area Between Innate and Learned:
Some traits blur the lines because they involve interactions between biology and environment:

Language acquisition: The ability to learn language is innate, but the specific language learned is environmental.
Intelligence: Certain cognitive potentials may be innate, but their development depends on upbringing and education.
Behavioral tendencies: Genetic predispositions (e.g., for aggression or empathy) can be amplified, diminished, or reshaped through life experiences.

Summary:
To differentiate between innate and learned traits:

Ask if the trait is present at birth or universally consistent across environments.
Determine if the trait depends on environmental input for its development.
Consider the role of genetics and whether the trait is biologically hardwired.

In studying whether there is natural morality Paul Bloom [link above] and others confine their studies to babies and infants that are less than 12 months old, thus not likely to be influenced by their environment.