Evolution cannot account for morality

[Angrboda]

What's this about, laddy?

The "hidden agenda" part?

All of it.

[Jehanne]

Don't view most of as being authorities, unless we are citing (even implicitly) authorities in support of our positions.  Board members, such as Polymath, are, of course, an exception, but, then again, no one can speak with absolute authority, the exception being the unanimous consensus of a scholarly community on some issue, but, then again, history has shown such consensus to be at times fallible.

Scientific truths are contingent truths, testable and correctable.

Hmm, okay. Well then I suppose it does not matter what any of us here thinks.

I never said that; instead, think for yourself, be critical (even judgmental) of your sorces, respect (to an extent) scholarly consensus, and, if you disagree with the scholarly consensus (in some instances, I do), understand why you disagree. For instance, I think that the Academy has whitewashed the early conquests of Islam and the violent teachings of Muhammad, but, that's for another thread!

[Fake Messiah]

Let's take the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary scientist Martin Nowak has identified five rules to explain why humans are the champions of cooperation...

I think that "cooperation" is a somewhat loaded term. The Romans, for instance, were willing to "cooperate" with conquered peoples (and, in doing so, pioneered federalism), so long as the latter did so on Rome's terms; otherwise, the legions would come and destroy you for your lack of "cooperation".

So what are you trying to say? That tribalism exists? Morality is not the only thing that evolved, but so did cruelty.
Cruelty also has evolutionary value. Kindness does too. But we can’t have both at the same time. We still compete and struggle with each other: for food, sexual reproduction, loving acknowledgment, dignity; and we often do it together as a tribe against tribe.

[chiknsld]

The "hidden agenda" part?

All of it.

I suppose in my experience, a proper discourse between two individuals will always be thwarted by one of the parties having a hidden agenda. I also suppose, that in my experience, this is an indication of an inherent improper civility.

[Ahriman]

All of it.

I suppose in my experience, a proper discourse between two individuals will always be thwarted by one of the parties having a hidden agenda. I also suppose, that in my experience, this is an indication of an inherent improper civility.

You won't run into that problem with me. What is it you really believe?

[Jehanne]

I think that "cooperation" is a somewhat loaded term. The Romans, for instance, were willing to "cooperate" with conquered peoples (and, in doing so, pioneered federalism), so long as the latter did so on Rome's terms; otherwise, the legions would come and destroy you for your lack of "cooperation".

So what are you trying to say? That tribalism exists? Morality is not the only thing that evolved, but so did cruelty.
Cruelty also has evolutionary value. Kindness does too. But we can’t have both at the same time. We still compete and struggle with each other: for food, sexual reproduction, loving acknowledgment, dignity; and we often do it together as a tribe against tribe.

In my opinion, past and present human behavior, individual and collective, can be described by modern game theory. We, as a species, cooperate when such is in our self-interests to do so; we sometimes conquer and destroy when such is in our self-interests. Religious, philosophical, political and/or economic systems often provide the justifications for both scenarios.

[Angrboda]

All of it.

I suppose in my experience, a proper discourse between two individuals will always be thwarted by one of the parties having a hidden agenda. I also suppose, that in my experience, this is an indication of an inherent improper civility.

So, when they go low, you go low as well?

[chiknsld]

Hmm, okay. Well then I suppose it does not matter what any of us here thinks.

I never said that; instead, think for yourself, be critical (even judgmental) of your sorces, respect (to an extent) scholarly consensus, and, if you disagree with the scholarly consensus (in some instances, I do), understand why you disagree.  For instance, I think that the Academy has whitewashed the early conquests of Islam and the violent teachings of Muhammad, but, that's for another thread!

Seems reasonable enough. You seem to me like a person that is capable of proper discourse, though I would assume that you often hold yourself back because of doubts possibly, or assuming that just because someone else is an expert that you cannot provide a wonderful contribution (especially given enough education) to the topic.

I have spoken (or tried to) to a biologist that is currently working on a theory of "quantum consciousness", if you will. Almost nothing that he said as part of his thesis was understandable to me, but there was one short sentence that I commented on, to which he pretty much immediately dismissed me and continued to talk to others instead. 

That was my only interaction in the conversation, needless to say.

Now maybe one day I will learn more about his theory, but as it stands, it is merely a missed opportunity because one of the parties is incapable of having proper discourse. Rather than giving me more insight into the thesis so that I might provide some of my own intuitive insights, he considered my overall opinion, based on one comment, to be of little to no value. Such is his right, but again, this is not proper discourse.

Also, he seemed to be making no headway in his conversation with others, but at least they were able to stroke his ego and allow him to feel intellectually superior. As I said, like pretty much nothing in his thesis was understandable, and yet he was casually discussing it on a thread. It's a shame.

[Jehanne]

I never said that; instead, think for yourself, be critical (even judgmental) of your sorces, respect (to an extent) scholarly consensus, and, if you disagree with the scholarly consensus (in some instances, I do), understand why you disagree.  For instance, I think that the Academy has whitewashed the early conquests of Islam and the violent teachings of Muhammad, but, that's for another thread!

Seems reasonable enough. You seem to me like a person that is capable of proper discourse, though I would assume that you often hold yourself back because of doubts possibly, or assuming that just because someone else is an expert that you cannot provide a wonderful contribution (especially given enough education) to the topic.

I have spoken (or tried to) to a biologist that is currently working on a theory of "quantum consciousness", if you will. Almost nothing that he said as part of his thesis was understandable to me, but there was one short sentence that I commented on, to which he pretty much immediately dismissed me and continued to talk to others instead. 

That was my only interaction in the conversation, needless to say.

Now maybe one day I will learn more about his theory, but as it stands, it is merely a missed opportunity because one of the parties is incapable of having proper discourse. Rather than giving me more insight into the thesis so that I might provide some of my own intuitive insights, he considered my overall opinion, based on one comment, to be of little to no value. Such is his right, but again, this is not proper discourse.

Also, he seemed to be making no headway in his conversation with others, but at least they were able to stroke his ego and allow him to feel intellectually superior. As I said, like pretty much nothing in his thesis was understandable, and yet he was casually discussing it on a thread. It's a shame.

For a theory to be scientific, it has to make testable predictions. I would be astonished if a model of quantum consciousness could make any empirical predictions whatsoever. By the correspondence principle, what's going on in our brains is at the level of biochemistry, not quatum physics.

[The Architect Of Fate]

There is no contradiction between someone casually talking about their ideas and them having no interest in explaining them to laymen.