Unifying spiritual practices to save the world

[godelian]

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.

So, it is by observing 12-month old babies that you have concocted your speculative list of innate moral rules?
You must surely have used your magical superpowers to achieve that!

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

So, it is by observing 12-month old babies that you have concocted your speculative list of innate moral rules?
You must surely have used your magical superpowers to achieve that!

The point of contention with relying on less that 12-month old babies is to counter your point we cannot different between what is innate and learned.
What is inferred from the study is that fundamental empathy, i.e. the basis of natural morality is innate.
It is from this basis of natural morality that we infer that listing is fundamentally natural morality.

Why there is an oughtnotness of genocides is evident by genocide is not a common thing within humanity which is linked to the fundamental of innate empathy.
It is your God that suppress this innate empathy and nurture believers via Q5:33 and other evil laden verses to commit genocides on believers which has been going on since the emergence of the religion since >1300 years ago.

[godelian]

The point of contention with relying on less that 12-month old babies is to counter your point we cannot different between what is innate and learned.

What exactly did you ask the less that 12-month old baby to do that it refused to do for reasons of morality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The point of contention with relying on less that 12-month old babies is to counter your point we cannot different between what is innate and learned.

What exactly did you ask the less that 12-month old baby to do that it refused to do for reasons of morality?

Word Salad.
Read the paper [linked] and related papers published elsewhere with regard to the methodology used.

The point of contention is you imply Islam is more qualify as a spiritual than what is in the West.
However, as I had argued immutable Islam is heavily evil-laden thus more potentially dangerous as a threat to humanity than the West with its room for greater empathy to facilitate moral progress in the future [not now].

Why there is an oughtnotness of genocides is evident by genocide is not a common thing within humanity which is linked to the fundamental of innate empathy.
It is your God that suppress this innate empathy and nurture believers via Q5:33 and other evil laden verses to commit genocides on believers which has been going on since the emergence of the religion since >1300 years ago.

[godelian]

The point of contention with relying on less that 12-month old babies is to counter your point we cannot different between what is innate and learned.

What exactly did you ask the less that 12-month old baby to do that it refused to do for reasons of morality?

Word Salad.

Not a word salad. I am not trying to assert anything at all. I am just asking a question about what you have tried to assert. What exactly did these 12-month old babies object to doing, on grounds of morality?

The point of contention is you imply Islam is more qualify as a spiritual than what is in the West.

First of all, you are making a category error.

Islamic moral theory is a system of rules from which the scholar derives rulings that decide whether a particular behavior is halal or haram. There is an extensive database of such rulings. You can look up this (virtual) database on the internet, if you are interested in the matter. ChatGPT, for example, seems to be very familiar with this database to the point that its rulings are almost as good as the original rulings. ChatGPT has an amazing level of knowledge of Islam.

You, on the other hand, you generally don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Islam. Seriously, you seem to specialize in vomiting mere bullshit. You specialize in disgorging low-level nonsense.

Concerning the phrase "what is in the West", it does not describe a moral theory or a system of moral rules. It is absolutely not clear what it means. Hence, as usual, you are again comparing apples to oranges. Even your starting point does not make sense, let alone, anything else you typically come up with. You will simply have to accept that you are just not good at this, even though you apparently believe that you are. ChatGPT is good at this. You are not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What exactly did you ask the less that 12-month old baby to do that it refused to do for reasons of morality?

Word Salad.

Not a word salad. I am not trying to assert anything at all. I am just asking a question about what you have tried to assert. What exactly did these 12-month old babies object to doing, on grounds of morality?

The more you asked, the more your ignorance is exposed.

The point of contention is you imply Islam is more qualify as a spiritual than what is in the West.

First of all, you are making a category error.

Islamic moral theory is a system of rules from which the scholar derives rulings that decide whether a particular behavior is halal or haram. There is an extensive database of such rulings. You can look up this (virtual) database on the internet, if you are interested in the matter. ChatGPT, for example, seems to be very familiar with this database to the point that its rulings are almost as good as the original rulings. ChatGPT has an amazing level of knowledge of Islam.

You, on the other hand, you generally don't know what you are talking about when it comes to Islam. Seriously, you seem to specialize in vomiting mere bullshit. You specialize in disgorging low-level nonsense.

Concerning the phrase "what is in the West", it does not describe a moral theory or a system of moral rules. It is absolutely not clear what it means. Hence, as usual, you are again comparing apples to oranges. Even your starting point does not make sense, let alone, anything else you typically come up with. You will simply have to accept that you are just not good at this, even though you apparently believe that you are. ChatGPT is good at this. You are not.

Ignorance again.
Islamic morality is not a system of rules from which the scholar derives rulings.
Islamic morality is what Allah dictated in the Quran and there is no certainty of what the scholar derives represent what is Islamic morality per se.

ChatGpt is good at what?
What are you talking about?

[godelian]

Word Salad.

Not a word salad. I am not trying to assert anything at all. I am just asking a question about what you have tried to assert. What exactly did these 12-month old babies object to doing, on grounds of morality?

The more you asked, the more your ignorance is exposed.

I am indeed ignorant of what exactly they asked these 12-month-old babies to do, that these babies objected to, on grounds of morality. I am simply not privy to the information. That is why I am asking again and again: What exactly did they ask these 12-month-old babies to do?

Islamic morality is not a system of rules from which the scholar derives rulings.

Islamic moral theory is a system of rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh

Figuratively, fiqh means knowledge about Islamic legal rulings from their sources. Deriving religious rulings from their sources requires the mujtahid (an individual who exercises ijtihad) to have a deep understanding in the different discussions of jurisprudence.

The Quran set the rights, responsibilities, and rules for people and societies to adhere to, such as dealing in interest. Muhammad then provided an example, which is recorded in the hadith books, showing people how he practically implemented these rules in a society. After the passing of Muhammad, there was a need for jurists, to decide on new legal matters where there is no such ruling in the Quran or the hadith, example of Muhammad regarding a similar case.[18][19]

In the years proceeding Muhammad, the community in Madina continued to use the same rules. People were familiar with the practice of Muhammad and therefore continued to use the same rules.

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) covers two main areas:

Rules in relation to actions, and,
Rules in relation to circumstances surrounding actions.

ChatGpt is good at what?

ChatGpt is surprisingly good at Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).

[Veritas Aequitas]

Not a word salad. I am not trying to assert anything at all. I am just asking a question about what you have tried to assert. What exactly did these 12-month old babies object to doing, on grounds of morality?

The more you asked, the more your ignorance is exposed.

I am indeed ignorant of what exactly they asked these 12-month-old babies to do, that these babies objected to, on grounds of morality. I am simply not privy to the information. That is why I am asking again and again: What exactly did they ask these 12-month-old babies to do?

It is very stupid to raise the question,
"What exactly did they ask these 12-month-old babies to do?"

Surely you know, 12-month-old babies do not have the ability to have proper communication with adult.
As such, the researcher will have to come up with inferring [black box basis] the responses of the babies based the actions or event they introduced.

Islamic morality is not a system of rules from which the scholar derives rulings.

Islamic moral theory is a system of rules:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiqh

Figuratively, fiqh means knowledge about Islamic legal rulings from their sources. Deriving religious rulings from their sources requires the mujtahid (an individual who exercises ijtihad) to have a deep understanding in the different discussions of jurisprudence.

The Quran set the rights, responsibilities, and rules for people and societies to adhere to, such as dealing in interest. Muhammad then provided an example, which is recorded in the hadith books, showing people how he practically implemented these rules in a society. After the passing of Muhammad, there was a need for jurists, to decide on new legal matters where there is no such ruling in the Quran or the hadith, example of Muhammad regarding a similar case.[18][19]

In the years proceeding Muhammad, the community in Madina continued to use the same rules. People were familiar with the practice of Muhammad and therefore continued to use the same rules.

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) covers two main areas:

Rules in relation to actions, and,
Rules in relation to circumstances surrounding actions.

In Islam, morality in the sense of "non practical guidelines"[1] or "specific norms or codes of behavior" for good doing (as opposed to ethical theory)[2] are primarily based on the Quran and the Hadith – the central religious texts of Islam[3] – and also mostly "commonly known moral virtues"[4] whose major points "most religions largely agree on".[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality_in_Islam

What is Islamic morality is solely from the words of Allah as dictated in the Quran.
The AHadith itself do not represent Islamic morality but are merely guides or appendix to the term of the covenant Muslims entered into with Allah.

ChatGpt is good at what?

ChatGpt is surprisingly good at Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) which is man-made is not Islamic Morality per se.

[godelian]

Surely you know, 12-month-old babies do not have the ability to have proper communication with adult.
As such, the researcher will have to come up with inferring [black box basis] the responses of the babies based the actions or event they introduced.

So, it is a speculative fabrication. Exactly what I thought it would be.

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) which is man-made is not Islamic Morality per se.

You don't know what you are talking about. You certainly do not understand the notion of "interpretation" or why it is inevitable:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/

A sentence S divides all its possible interpretations into two classes, those that are models of it and those that are not. In this way it defines a class, namely the class of all its models, written Mod(S). To take a legal example, the sentence:

The first person has transferred the property to the second person, who thereby holds the property for the benefit of the third person.

defines a class of structures which take the form of labelled 4-tuples, as for example (writing the label on the left):

the first person = Alfonso Arblaster;
the property = the derelict land behind Alfonso’s house;
the second person = John Doe;
the third person = Richard Roe.

This is a typical model-theoretic definition, defining a class of structures (in this case, the class known to the lawyers as trusts).

We can extend the idea of model-theoretic definition from a single sentence S to a set T of sentences; Mod(T) is the class of all interpretations that are simultaneously models of all the sentences in T. When a set T of sentences is used to define a class in this way, mathematicians say that T is a theory or a set of axioms, and that T axiomatises the class Mod(T).

A consistent theory, i.e. set of rules, always has one or more interpretations, i.e. models. The only way to actually use a theory, is by interpreting it. That is why interpretation is inevitable. If a jurisprudential ruling necessarily follows from its sources, then it is not man-made law. So, what you are saying about Islamic jurisprudence, i.e. the interpretation of Islamic law, is nonsensical.

[Belinda]

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.

True, nature and nurture can't be separated in our understandings of causes of events concerning human beings. It is easier to separate nature and nurture in wild animals, and even more so in artificially bred animals.

The moral codes of Christianity and Islam are not natural but are taught and so codified morality concerns nurture : not nature. In cases of feraL children who were reared by canines or apes the children acquired the adoptive animal's moral attitudes: obviously these attitudes were not codified as the adoptive parent did not possess symbolic language.

So, moral attitudes are sometimes transmitted from generation to generation via the store- houses of culture. However moral codes, dogmas, and doctrines must be taught to individuals by means of language.

The human parent, like the canine bitch, nurtures natural and cultural morality through her example . However specialised moral codes such as how to be good herding dog, or a good guarding dog, a good Conservative, or a good Communist are entirely taught and are not innate.

[Impenitent]

morality for 12 month olds...

shove a binky in it and know peace

-Imp

[Veritas Aequitas]

Surely you know, 12-month-old babies do not have the ability to have proper communication with adult.
As such, the researcher will have to come up with inferring [black box basis] the responses of the babies based the actions or event they introduced.

So, it is a speculative fabrication. Exactly what I thought it would be.

I wonder why you are so ignorant on this?
What the researchers are doing is based on the scientific conditions to arrive at what are scientific facts.
In this case of the methodologies used in social sciences, the degrees of objectivity is lower than those of natural sciences.

Objectivity is a value. To call a thing objective implies that it has a certain importance to us and that we approve of it.
Objectivity comes in degrees.
Claims, methods and results can be more or less objective, and, other things being equal, the more objective, the better. Using the term “objective” to describe something often carries a special rhetorical force with it. The admiration of science among the general public and the authority science enjoys in public life stems to a large extent from the view that science is objective or at least more objective than other modes of inquiry. Understanding scientific objectivity is therefore central to understanding the nature of science and the role it plays in society.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archivES/FAL ... jectivity/

Why you find the above contentious is because your believing in the truths of Islam is based faith, i.e. pure blind faith.

Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) which is man-made is not Islamic Morality per se.

You don't know what you are talking about. You certainly do not understand the notion of "interpretation" or why it is inevitable:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/model-theory/

A sentence S divides all its possible interpretations into two classes, those that are models of it and those that are not. In this way it defines a class, namely the class of all its models, written Mod(S). To take a legal example, the sentence:

The first person has transferred the property to the second person, who thereby holds the property for the benefit of the third person.

defines a class of structures which take the form of labelled 4-tuples, as for example (writing the label on the left):

the first person = Alfonso Arblaster;
the property = the derelict land behind Alfonso’s house;
the second person = John Doe;
the third person = Richard Roe.

This is a typical model-theoretic definition, defining a class of structures (in this case, the class known to the lawyers as trusts).

We can extend the idea of model-theoretic definition from a single sentence S to a set T of sentences; Mod(T) is the class of all interpretations that are simultaneously models of all the sentences in T. When a set T of sentences is used to define a class in this way, mathematicians say that T is a theory or a set of axioms, and that T axiomatises the class Mod(T).

A consistent theory, i.e. set of rules, always has one or more interpretations, i.e. models. The only way to actually use a theory, is by interpreting it. That is why interpretation is inevitable. If a jurisprudential ruling necessarily follows from its sources, then it is not man-made law. So, what you are saying about Islamic jurisprudence, i.e. the interpretation of Islamic law, is nonsensical.

Of course I understand what is interpretation.

My point is, interpretations are done by fallible humans with various interests and thus the potential of interpretations being corrupted by biasness.

My question [repeat]:
If a Muslim kill a blasphemer [e.g. drawing cartoons of the prophet] based on his interpretation of the dictates of Q5:33 [re Fasad], will he be punished by the omniscient Allah on Judgment Day?

If a group of Muslims by their interpretation of the dictates of Q5:33 [re Fasad established rules of jurisprudence that a blasphemer [e.g. drawing cartoons of the prophet] should not be killed or it is a sin to kill the blasphemer, will they be rewarded or will they be punished by the omniscient Allah on Judgment Day?

Don't be a coward and run away from the above questions?

[godelian]

In this case of the methodologies used in social sciences, the degrees of objectivity is lower than those of natural sciences.

It is the nature of the problem that decides what justification methods are available. Since human behavior is usually not testable in a reproducible manner, I don't have a problem with the fact that they cannot produce an experimental test report for the problem at hand. However, I also expect them to point out the rather speculation nature of their conclusions, which they often omit to do.

Why you find the above contentious is because your believing in the truths of Islam is based faith, i.e. pure blind faith.

The moral theory of a religion does not seek to objectively describe physical reality. Instead, it seeks to normatively decide what is right and what is wrong on a foundationalist ("axiomatic") basis.

Morality is not about "what is". Instead, it is about "what ought to be".

My point is, interpretations are done by fallible humans with various interests and thus the potential of interpretations being corrupted by biasness.

No, interpretation of Islamic law can be done by a machine such as ChatGPT.

Machine-based interpretation is obviously not authoritative but neither is a ruling by a single individual mufti.

It is the "ijma" (consensus) of the independently adjudicating muftis who individually each correctly use the "usul al fiqh" (the jurisprudential method which is essentially axiomatic) that is considered to be authoritative.

My question [repeat]:
If a Muslim kill a blasphemer [e.g. drawing cartoons of the prophet] based on his interpretation of the dictates of Q5:33 [re Fasad], will he be punished by the omniscient Allah on Judgment Day?

Ask ChatGPT and compare its answer the Google search results on the question. Why should I do your homework? Why don't you do the work by yourself? I only work on questions that I find interesting.

Don't be a coward and run away from the above questions?

It's not that I am a coward.

I am simply not interested in that kind of questions.

If you want to debate specific cases in the interpretation of Islamic law, why don't you enroll in a class of Islamic studies and debate your teacher and fellow students?

I am much more interested in questions such as:

What are the details, caveats, and pitfalls of the "usul al fiqh" (the jurisprudential justification method of Islamic law)?

Show me some difficult cases. Why are these cases difficult? How does its method compare with the method in secular law?

I research and talk about the things I am interested in. You research and talk about what you are interested in. So, we can only go in depth on the intersection of both.

It's the same in mathematics.

My interests are mostly concentrated on the foundational crisis in mathematics, and the discussions tend to be meta-mathematical.

If someone instead wants to discuss, for example, Laplace transforms or Fourier analysis or some theorem in combinatorics or in algebraic geometry, I am not the right person to talk with, because I am simply not interested in these subjects.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In this case of the methodologies used in social sciences, the degrees of objectivity is lower than those of natural sciences.

It is the nature of the problem that decides what justification methods are available. Since human behavior is usually not testable in a reproducible manner, I don't have a problem with the fact that they cannot produce an experimental test report for the problem at hand. However, I also expect them to point out the rather speculation nature of their conclusions, which they often omit to do.

In this case,
that they reached a conclusion based on the above, i.e. the moral function is innate in humans at birth, need not be pointed out as a speculation but understood as a scientific fact contingent [qualified] upon the specific scientific framework and system of knowledge.

This scientific fact with reference to the innate or inherent moral function at birth is not absolute, but you can test it yourself and counter it if you can prove otherwise.

That morality is innate from birth [nurture] should highlight the fact that humanity must ensure we prevent this innate morality from being corrupted by evil nurtured from an evil religion of hatred and violence.

Why you find the above contentious is because your believing in the truths of Islam is based faith, i.e. pure blind faith.

The moral theory of a religion does not seek to objectively describe physical reality. Instead, it seeks to normatively decide what is right and what is wrong on a foundationalist ("axiomatic") basis.

Morality is not about "what is". Instead, it is about "what ought to be".

Who said so?
I have raised more than 30 threads to counter this claim of Hume's "No Ought from Is" [NOFI] in the Ethical Theory Section.
Also Hume postulated morality is grounded on empathy [sympathy] and now neuroscience has shown empathy is supported by mirror neurons, i.e. "is". Thus whatever the 'ought' it is from "is".

My point is, interpretations are done by fallible humans with various interests and thus the potential of interpretations being corrupted by biasness.

No, interpretation of Islamic law can be done by a machine such as ChatGPT.

Machine-based interpretation is obviously not authoritative but neither is a ruling by a single individual mufti.

It is the "ijma" (consensus) of the independently adjudicating muftis who individually each correctly use the "usul al fiqh" (the jurisprudential method which is essentially axiomatic) that is considered to be authoritative.

You are really a bad Muslim, i.e. undermining God's words to focus on the interpretations of a collective-of-humans.

My question [repeat]:
If a Muslim kill a blasphemer [e.g. drawing cartoons of the prophet] based on his interpretation of the dictates of Q5:33 [re Fasad], will he be punished by the omniscient Allah on Judgment Day?

Ask ChatGPT and compare its answer the Google search results on the question. Why should I do your homework? Why don't you do the work by yourself? I only work on questions that I find interesting.

Do you believe in going to paradise with eternal life and avoiding Hell after physical death?
If so, the above is very relevant for you to get the right answer so to ensure you understand God's intention and do not sin.

Don't be a coward and run away from the above questions?

It's not that I am a coward.

I am simply not interested in that kind of questions.

If you want to debate specific cases in the interpretation of Islamic law, why don't you enroll in a class of Islamic studies and debate your teacher and fellow students?

I am much more interested in questions such as:

What are the details, caveats, and pitfalls of the "usul al fiqh" (the jurisprudential justification method of Islamic law)?

Show me some difficult cases. Why are these cases difficult? How does its method compare with the method in secular law?

I research and talk about the things I am interested in. You research and talk about what you are interested in. So, we can only go in depth on the intersection of both.

It's the same in mathematics.

My interests are mostly concentrated on the foundational crisis in mathematics, and the discussions tend to be meta-mathematical.

If someone instead wants to discuss, for example, Laplace transforms or Fourier analysis or some theorem in combinatorics or in algebraic geometry, I am not the right person to talk with, because I am simply not interested in these subjects.

Btw, are you a genuine Muslim?
Again,
Do you believe in going to paradise with eternal life and avoiding Hell after physical death?
If so, the above is very relevant for you to get the right answer so to ensure you understand God's intention and be an obedient Muslim and do not sin.

Q5:33 is God's dictate and command which all good Muslims must comply with as with all other commands in the Quran as the term of the covenant you enter into with God with a promise of eternal life in paradise.

[godelian]

Do you believe in going to paradise with eternal life and avoiding Hell after physical death?

This is a matter of spirituality and therefore not a suitable subject for rational debate. The only legitimate arguments are spiritual. Again, I am also not interested in discussing what you want to discuss. I do not particularly appreciate your choice of topics. Furthermore, you are simply not the right person to discuss spirituality with, to begin with.