Can there be shared community values?

[Zero_Sum]

You are referring to forms, I was referring to substance/essence of the inherent propensity within humans to share and co-operate which is not changing.

For example while humans will practice different ways of producing and consuming food over its history, the digestive system of humans to get nutrients as essence is not changing.

Shared community values is an impossibility in today's world.

You are confining your point to a fixed period of time, i.e. today, present, now, whereas what I have presented is there is a existing potential and positive trend towards greater sharing of values among people towards the future.
This trend of sharing values is progressing as evidenced by greater sense of co-operation between people and Nations, e.g. ISS and many other global projects.

Why do you state "impossibility" when sharing of community values are already happening?

Examples of an impossibility is like the existence of a square-circle, an absolutely perfect God [as argued],
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474

We're having a conversation, hardly an articulation of shared values since indeed my values are not your own and vice versa. There really isn't cooperation in the sense that it happens naturally on its own where instead there is a group of people that live in a same geographical area forced to cooperate with each other by the end of a barrel of a gun. Now this isn't to say that cooperation in the natural sense didn't once exist, it did, it just hasn't existed for thousands of years since the agricultural revolution that I alluded to earlier.

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

[James S Saint]

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

How would you envision a shared-values community living day to day during technological times?

[Prismatic567]

We're having a conversation, hardly an articulation of shared values since indeed my values are not your own and vice versa. There really isn't cooperation in the sense that it happens naturally on its own where instead there is a group of people that live in a same geographical area forced to cooperate with each other by the end of a barrel of a gun. Now this isn't to say that cooperation in the natural sense didn't once exist, it did, it just hasn't existed for thousands of years since the agricultural revolution that I alluded to earlier.

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

Yes, if there is coercion, it cannot be co-operation in this intended sense of shared-value.

Note the natural effect of synergy, i.e. the total effect is greater than the sums of its parts.
It is this natural principle that drive co-operation and has nothing to do with coercion.
Because it is a natural principle it has always existed since human were made aware of it as justified with evidence that support this principle.

The potential towards the future is what is most critical, what is present and past is relevant as guidance only for the future.
This is why it is critical we recognize the inherent potential towards morality [which has justified evolutionary grounds] and expedite a greater realization of this inherent potential to prevent, reduce or eliminate evils.

[Zero_Sum]

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

How would you envision a shared-values community living day to day during technological times?

I don't, stratification and specialization makes it impossible.

[Zero_Sum]

We're having a conversation, hardly an articulation of shared values since indeed my values are not your own and vice versa. There really isn't cooperation in the sense that it happens naturally on its own where instead there is a group of people that live in a same geographical area forced to cooperate with each other by the end of a barrel of a gun. Now this isn't to say that cooperation in the natural sense didn't once exist, it did, it just hasn't existed for thousands of years since the agricultural revolution that I alluded to earlier.

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

Yes, if there is coercion, it cannot be co-operation in this intended sense of shared-value.

Note the natural effect of synergy, i.e. the total effect is greater than the sums of its parts.
It is this natural principle that drive co-operation and has nothing to do with coercion.
Because it is a natural principle it has always existed since human were made aware of it as justified with evidence that support this principle.

The potential towards the future is what is most critical, what is present and past is relevant as guidance only for the future.
This is why it is critical we recognize the inherent potential towards morality [which has justified evolutionary grounds] and expedite a greater realization of this inherent potential to prevent, reduce or eliminate evils.

If you have faith in the future I would say you're sorely going to be disappointed along with all the other hopefuls. The agricultural revolution destroyed natural cooperation by my perspective.

Morality? Have you learned nothing from our previous conversations?

[James S Saint]

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

How would you envision a shared-values community living day to day during technological times?

I don't, stratification and specialization makes it impossible.

And if those were magically eliminated?

[Prismatic567]

We're having a conversation, hardly an articulation of shared values since indeed my values are not your own and vice versa. There really isn't cooperation in the sense that it happens naturally on its own where instead there is a group of people that live in a same geographical area forced to cooperate with each other by the end of a barrel of a gun. Now this isn't to say that cooperation in the natural sense didn't once exist, it did, it just hasn't existed for thousands of years since the agricultural revolution that I alluded to earlier.

When I say impossibility I mean this era and the several thousand that preceded it.

Yes, if there is coercion, it cannot be co-operation in this intended sense of shared-value.

Note the natural effect of synergy, i.e. the total effect is greater than the sums of its parts.
It is this natural principle that drive co-operation and has nothing to do with coercion.
Because it is a natural principle it has always existed since human were made aware of it as justified with evidence that support this principle.

The potential towards the future is what is most critical, what is present and past is relevant as guidance only for the future.
This is why it is critical we recognize the inherent potential towards morality [which has justified evolutionary grounds] and expedite a greater realization of this inherent potential to prevent, reduce or eliminate evils.

If you have faith in the future I would say you're sorely going to be disappointed along with all the other hopefuls. The agricultural revolution destroyed natural cooperation by my perspective.

How did agricultural revolution destroyed and eliminate the Principles of Synergy in general? Are you implying all humans should stop co-operating in all forms and turn to be selfish individual[s] from now on and the future?

Morality? Have you learned nothing from our previous conversations?

There is nothing new to be learned from your narrow and shallow basis of philosophy. I'll will thank you if you had brought something new to add to my knowledge database.

[Zero_Sum]

And if those were magically eliminated?

We would return to a natural state of cooperation like existence was before the agricultural revolution. I just don't see it happening without some sort of destructive global collapse.

I like your word usage of magically eliminated, doesn't inspire a lot of faith or confidence on your part.

[Zero_Sum]

How did agricultural revolution destroyed and eliminate the Principles of Synergy in general? Are you implying all humans should stop co-operating in all forms and turn to be selfish individual[s] from now on and the future?

Morality? Have you learned nothing from our previous conversations?

There is nothing new to be learned from your narrow and shallow basis of philosophy. I'll will thank you if you had brought something new to add to my knowledge database.

Technological innovation in the creation of class stratification and occupational specialization. Once you let the genie out of the bottle there is no going back without a global massive destructive event. There will always be selfish individuals, some more than others.

Well, the feeling is mutual yet here we are.

[Prismatic567]

How did agricultural revolution destroyed and eliminate the Principles of Synergy in general? Are you implying all humans should stop co-operating in all forms and turn to be selfish individual[s] from now on and the future?

Morality? Have you learned nothing from our previous conversations?

There is nothing new to be learned from your narrow and shallow basis of philosophy. I'll will thank you if you had brought something new to add to my knowledge database.

Technological innovation in the creation of class stratification and occupational specialization. Once you let the genie out of the bottle there is no going back without a global massive destructive event. There will always be selfish individuals, some more than others.

Well, the feeling is mutual yet here we are.

I had stated humans like other animals evolved initially with instincts to be 'selfish' to facilitate basic survival.

If you study the brain and psychology, you will note such basis instinct of selfishness is embedded in the lower brain which is present in all animals.

The point is there is evolution and humans has evolved to be higher animals as represented by the "higher' cortical parts of the brain which house the neural circuits that promote co-operation and other more sophisticated faculties.

Humans cannot get rid of its selfish instincts, but humans will continue to evolve in the future and the trend is the greater realization of the inherent morality potential which will modulate and override the primal 'selfish' tendencies.

[James S Saint]

humans will continue to evolve in the future and the trend is the greater realization of the inherent morality potential which will modulate and override the primal 'selfish' tendencies.

Humans are NOT "evolving", but rather are being designed, modified, and bred.

[Alf]

humans will continue to evolve in the future and the trend is the greater realization of the inherent morality potential which will modulate and override the primal 'selfish' tendencies.

Humans are NOT "evolving", but rather are being designed, modified, and bred.

Interesting and likely true. But what would you respond if someone said to you that humans had "evolving" ancestors?

E_z_M.gif (13.08 KiB) Viewed 2404 times

A_b_Hs.jpg (34.66 KiB) Viewed 2404 times

[Zero_Sum]

I had stated humans like other animals evolved initially with instincts to be 'selfish' to facilitate basic survival.

If you study the brain and psychology, you will note such basis instinct of selfishness is embedded in the lower brain which is present in all animals.

The point is there is evolution and humans has evolved to be higher animals as represented by the "higher' cortical parts of the brain which house the neural circuits that promote co-operation and other more sophisticated faculties.

Humans cannot get rid of its selfish instincts, but humans will continue to evolve in the future and the trend is the greater realization of the inherent morality potential which will modulate and override the primal 'selfish' tendencies.

Yes, human beings are evolving alright from spears to guns, guns to atomic bombs, and finally biological weapons with weaponized diseases. Then of course there is the future introduction of automation with artificial intelligence. Empathy, or morality? Not so much.

You envision a future where everybody is holding hands in brotherly solidarity, I can't say I hold the same enthusiasm.

[James S Saint]

But what would you respond if someone said to you that humans had "evolving" ancestors?

I would have to ask which one is evolving. And can I go meet and perhaps video this guy?

[LogicalMetaphysician]

Current leftist dictatorship? In the US? Right wingers control all 3 branches of government here currently.

lol, you mean fake right wingers. Their policies are not much different than that of democrats if you look at the legislation that they produce with a few exceptions, abortion being the best I can think of right now.

[LogicalMetaphysician]

My position on the topic question is: Yes, there can be shared community values. Yes, the values listed, such as cooperativeness on shared worthwhile goals, are qualities that a person of good character would have.

No, there cannot be shared community values because that is a form of collectivism. Collectivism is based on altruistic philosophy (utilitarianism) and altruism is irrational and utilitarianism is self defeating because if you run a cost/benefit analysis on utilitarianism itself, you will find that it is more destructive than it is beneficial due to its altruistic nature. Altruism does not exist and cannot exist. Everything that the individual does, the individual does so because he believes that it will make him/her better of by doing so be it directly or indirectly. Let's take your case for example. You believe that if you instill these values socially, it will make your life better by making the nation a better place to live. If you didn't gain any personal benefit out of the nation being a better place and/or you didn't believe that if everyone shared your values it would make the nation a better place, what reason would you have for acting?

Furthermore, it goes without saying that not everybody is going to share your values. What you are attempting to do here is impose your values on other people against their will using government force since school is mandatory. That is a violation of those people's individual rights. Nobody is qualified to say what is in the individual's best interest than the individual. Also, we all own our own bodies. Would you agree with this statement?

[LogicalMetaphysician]

Btw, the Abrahamic God [4+ billion believers] is the worst and vile dictator besides whatever good it has.

Agreed there. I say this all the time.

[Prismatic567]

I had stated humans like other animals evolved initially with instincts to be 'selfish' to facilitate basic survival.

If you study the brain and psychology, you will note such basis instinct of selfishness is embedded in the lower brain which is present in all animals.

The point is there is evolution and humans has evolved to be higher animals as represented by the "higher' cortical parts of the brain which house the neural circuits that promote co-operation and other more sophisticated faculties.

Humans cannot get rid of its selfish instincts, but humans will continue to evolve in the future and the trend is the greater realization of the inherent morality potential which will modulate and override the primal 'selfish' tendencies.

Yes, human beings are evolving alright from spears to guns, guns to atomic bombs, and finally biological weapons with weaponized diseases. Then of course there is the future introduction of automation with artificial intelligence. Empathy, or morality? Not so much.

You envision a future where everybody is holding hands in brotherly solidarity, I can't say I hold the same enthusiasm.

One thing I am quite certain is the Earth will one day be inhospitable to humans. This is evident with what is happening with other planets within the known Universe.

Stephen Hawking says humans must colonize another planet in 100 years or face extinction
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/05/stephen ... lanet.html

There is also the earlier threat of Earth being destroyed by a rogue meteorite.

To counter the above humans has strive to evolve [progress] to enable it the chance to counter the above threats to preserve the human species. This is why humanity is progressing with advancing knowledge at an exponential rate.

Knowledge [e.g. Science, etc.] is always a double-edge blade which will cut both ways.
To modulate the above, there is the advent of neural circuits to promote morality [empathy, etc.] at an incremental rate.
As evident the progress of morality neural wise is [seemingly] not keeping up with the advancement of knowledge and technology but there is no critical consequence to this shortfall so far.

Thus it is critical, given the knowledge morality [re shared values] is neural-based, humanity must strive to expedite the average Moral Intelligence of humanity with the available and expanding knowledge to enable greater co-operation between humans to come up with knowledge and technologies to deal with the impending galactical threats.

[LogicalMetaphysician]

So there is a potential morality drive that is inherent within ALL humans which can be active or dormant in various people. What is critical is humanity must recognize and understand the processes involved within this inherent potential and activate it in as many people as possible. This potential give humanity the assurance that 'good' will always prevail over 'evil'.

Are you making this assertion based on a single study? If so, then you are ignorant of how science workd. One study does not make a scientific consensus and there are likely studies that come to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, the sample size was likely not nearly large enough for you to make the claim "ALL humans." For instance, what about babies who are born sociopaths? Do you think that they also have a morality drive? Did the study which you conveniently didn't even cite look at babies with sociopathy as well?

[Prismatic567]

So there is a potential morality drive that is inherent within ALL humans which can be active or dormant in various people. What is critical is humanity must recognize and understand the processes involved within this inherent potential and activate it in as many people as possible. This potential give humanity the assurance that 'good' will always prevail over 'evil'.

Are you making this assertion based on a single study? If so, then you are ignorant of how science workd. One study does not make a scientific consensus and there are likely studies that come to the opposite conclusion. Furthermore, the sample size was likely not nearly large enough for you to make the claim "ALL humans." For instance, what about babies who are born sociopaths? Do you think that they also have a morality drive? Did the study which you conveniently didn't even cite look at babies with sociopathy as well?

There are a lot of studies showing the existence of mirror neurons in humans and also in the primates.
Note I mentioned 'potential' in ALL humans.

Example, the generic human being [ALL] has DNA with a potential for sexuality.
But this potential may not be realized in ALL humans, some are asexual and some are sexual deviants.
Normally I will state ALL normal human beings to exclude those with damaged DNA blueprint due to various reasons, chemical, etc.

A baby [as a human being] will have the potential for morality due the generic presence of mirror neurons as a default.
But this potential may not be activated for various reason and for some the connectivity may have deviated and thus we have those who are born and destined to be sociopath, psychopaths and other psychological deviants who has a damaged moral circuit.

Where I rely on Science, especially neuroscience in relation to morality, I will make provision for the possibility of errors.

Nevertheless I am supporting my points with evidence of moral progress within humanity, e.g. banning of slavery and many aspects of humanity displaying shared values in practice.

[LogicalMetaphysician]

As one will note within evolution, the higher the cognitive consciousness of living things the greater the power of co-operations [shared-values], i.e. the highest are by human beings.

Yes, but that does not mean that shared values ought to be dictated or centrally organized. You have yet to make a case for that.

Therefore there is an inherent drive and trend towards shared-values as observed within evolution and this is present in human beings.

You have yet to prove that either. Your only example was slavery and slavery is still practiced in certain regions. In fact there is a big scandal going on now about it in Liberia. You also do not examine all the reasons WHY slavery was abolished. You assume that it was solely because it is immoral. That is definitely part of the reason, but the other reason is economic in nature. Slavery is very bad for the economy. We have also created machines to toil and do the labor for us so slavery is obsolete in developed countries.

Can there be shared community values?
With the above existing potential and trend, we can assert there are already shared community values within human beings and the degree of sharing of values is progressing continually.

I don't think we can say that there are shared values in the community. First of all, there is no community. The community is simply a group of individuals. Unless every single person unanimously agrees with your "shared values" then your assertion is simply argumentum ad populum or indulges collectivism which is irrational.

[LogicalMetaphysician]

There are a lot of studies showing the existence of mirror neurons in humans and also in the primates.
Note I mentioned 'potential' in ALL humans.

Example, the generic human being [ALL] has DNA with a potential for sexuality.
But this potential may not be realized in ALL humans, some are asexual and some are sexual deviants.
Normally I will state ALL normal human beings to exclude those with damaged DNA blueprint due to various reasons, chemical, etc.

A baby [as a human being] will have the potential for morality due the generic presence of mirror neurons as a default.
But this potential may not be activated for various reason and for some the connectivity may have deviated and thus we have those who are born and destined to be sociopath, psychopaths and other psychological deviants who has a damaged moral circuit.

Where I rely on Science, especially neuroscience in relation to morality, I will make provision for the possibility of errors.

Nevertheless I am supporting my points with evidence of moral progress within humanity, e.g. banning of slavery and many aspects of humanity displaying shared values in practice.

Okay, can you post links to some of those studies so that we can check the methodology, corrections made, validity of the conclusion, etc.?

Also, you seem to be making the claim that sociopaths have "damaged DNA." Is there any evidence for this claim? Sociopathy actually carries a lot of survival benefits for the individual. That sounds like evolution, not damage.

[Arminius]

humans will continue to evolve in the future and the trend is the greater realization of the inherent morality potential which will modulate and override the primal 'selfish' tendencies.

Humans are NOT "evolving", but rather are being designed, modified, and bred.

Interesting and likely true. But what would you respond if someone said to you that humans had "evolving" ancestors?

Do you mean that the first five or that all six "guys" in that picture represent the ancestors?

[Prismatic567]

As one will note within evolution, the higher the cognitive consciousness of living things the greater the power of co-operations [shared-values], i.e. the highest are by human beings.

Yes, but that does not mean that shared values ought to be dictated or centrally organized. You have yet to make a case for that.

Therefore there is an inherent drive and trend towards shared-values as observed within evolution and this is present in human beings.

You have yet to prove that either. Your only example was slavery and slavery is still practiced in certain regions. In fact there is a big scandal going on now about it in Liberia. You also do not examine all the reasons WHY slavery was abolished. You assume that it was solely because it is immoral. That is definitely part of the reason, but the other reason is economic in nature. Slavery is very bad for the economy. We have also created machines to toil and do the labor for us so slavery is obsolete in developed countries.

Can there be shared community values?
With the above existing potential and trend, we can assert there are already shared community values within human beings and the degree of sharing of values is progressing continually.

I don't think we can say that there are shared values in the community. First of all, there is no community. The community is simply a group of individuals. Unless every single person unanimously agrees with your "shared values" then your assertion is simply argumentum ad populum or indulges collectivism which is irrational.

Note the Principles of Synergy, i.e. where the total effects of a group [working together] is greater than the sum of all its parts [individuals working alone].

One of the basic motivation that is common within ALL normal [not the suicidals] humans is basic survival till the inevitable.
By the Principles of synergy and experiences of its effect, the majority humans will group together with shared-values that will benefit their chances of survival within a group rather than as individuals. This is evident from anthropological and historical studies of mankind and even animals [colonies, pack, pride, etc.]

Thus as I had stated above;
Therefore there is an inherent drive and trend towards shared-values as observed within evolution and this is present in human beings.

As for slavery, I stated the introduction of the laws and banning of slavery by ALL Nations in the World is a great achievement in the progressive trend of morality.
But being humans, there will still be people who cannot let go of their past and will practice slavery but they are doing it illegally.

Re the recent case in Liberia, it is because we have an international shared value on slavery as illegal that automatic brand such practices as immoral and actions need to be taken within the slavery laws of Liberia.
Just imaging IF there are no such shared values of slavery in Liberia, the authorities [who may be personally practicing slavery] will give all sorts of excuses and the international community will have no strong leverage to force them to take action.

Note in this case I am discussing shared-values in terms of Laws on slavery. It is at least something as a starter, but Laws [legislature and judiciary] is not morality proper.
Morality-proper is the state [which need to be cultivated] where the individuals and thereby groups do not practice slavery on the own will as good moral and not being forced upon.

[Prismatic567]

There are a lot of studies showing the existence of mirror neurons in humans and also in the primates.
Note I mentioned 'potential' in ALL humans.

Example, the generic human being [ALL] has DNA with a potential for sexuality.
But this potential may not be realized in ALL humans, some are asexual and some are sexual deviants.
Normally I will state ALL normal human beings to exclude those with damaged DNA blueprint due to various reasons, chemical, etc.

A baby [as a human being] will have the potential for morality due the generic presence of mirror neurons as a default.
But this potential may not be activated for various reason and for some the connectivity may have deviated and thus we have those who are born and destined to be sociopath, psychopaths and other psychological deviants who has a damaged moral circuit.

Where I rely on Science, especially neuroscience in relation to morality, I will make provision for the possibility of errors.

Nevertheless I am supporting my points with evidence of moral progress within humanity, e.g. banning of slavery and many aspects of humanity displaying shared values in practice.

Okay, can you post links to some of those studies so that we can check the methodology, corrections made, validity of the conclusion, etc.?

Also, you seem to be making the claim that sociopaths have "damaged DNA." Is there any evidence for this claim? Sociopathy actually carries a lot of survival benefits for the individual. That sounds like evolution, not damage.

Re,

But this potential may not be activated for various reason and for some the connectivity may have deviated and thus we have those who are born and destined to be sociopath, psychopaths and other psychological deviants who has a damaged moral circuit.

I should have stated more clearly,

But this potential may not be activated for various reason and

1. for some the connectivity may have deviated and thus we have those who are born and destined to be sociopath, psychopaths and
2. other psychological deviants who has a damaged moral circuit.

My point is sociopaths and psychopaths in general arose from certain neural connectivity due to various reasons while in the womb and not because of damaged DNA [before conception]. I agree those with benign psychopathy with net-positive traits [many good leaders, CEOs and top people] are an 'asset' to humanity.

In general, those who has damaged DNA [before conception] may turned out to be psychological deviants.