That's a nice thought. Have you looked into GAs by chance? They can work when other methods don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_algorithm — j0e

:ok:

The American Republican party and its supporters illustrate that on a daily basis. :-) (Sorry, don't want to derail, but couldn't resist.) — Wayfarer

On point.

One man, Agrippa. Case closed. If your curiosity still isn't satisfied, then consider people's tendency to swallow veridically-challenged falsehoods (aka flattery) hook, line, and sinker. I surmise the reasons for this are rather simple:

1. Counterfactuals can't be about the past, the past is and there's nothing you can do about it. Likewise, counterfactuals can't be about the present, what is is. That leaves only the future as a possible state of affairs in which counterfactuals can be true. Ergo, when someone is told a lie, usually a white lie, fae treats it as a future possibility that can be actualized given one makes the right choices. The word "plan" seems apposite to what I'm trying to get across.

2. If you really look at it, living a lie isn't really a problem if one eliminates the risks involved in doing that which are injury or death, injury and death to be understood in the broadest sense of those words. In other words, if the dangers of believing lies are zero, anyone would prefer to live a life of fantasy i.e. in a false reality.


3. This isn't a reason for why people might want to hear lies but it's quite mind-blowing by my reckoning. When people put truth at the forefront what they're actually doing is endorsing the correspondence theory of truth. Compare this to the way falsehoods are sustained or escape detection which is by weaving a coherent story around it which is just another name for the coherence theory if truth.

My two cents worth.

First of all, let me thank you for willing to participate as a guest speaker on the forum. It's a wonderful opportunity for us to talk to and interact with someone who stands for a belief, in your case transhumanism. That we will learn more of the ins and outs of the transhumanist philosophy goes without saying but I'm also hopeful that there's something in it for you too.

That out of the way, I'd like to pick your brain regarding a certain point of view that's encapsulated in the following quote:

Any suffuiciently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature — Unknown

I don't know who said it and a Google search takes me to the sci-fi writer Arthur C. Clarke's quote which I'll mention below for reference:

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic — Arthur C. Clarke

As far as this particular post is concerned who said it matters not so much as what exactly is being said.

You mention three supers: 1. Superintellgence, 2. Superlongevity and 3. Superhappiness

Those are, even to detractors of transhumaninsm, very noble thoughts and if we're to fault them we can only do so by attacking not the main ideas themselves but the secondary support structures that hold up the transhumanist philosophy.

Coming to the issue I want to bring to your attention, one question, "where does evolution figure in transhumanist philosophy?"

I ask because, if evolution is true and it's been in play for at least a few billion years, shouldn't the status quo for intelligence, longevity, and happiness be optimum/maximum for the current "environment". In other words, we have in terms of the trio of intelligence, longevity, and happiness, the best deal nature has to offer. We shouldn't, in that case, attempt to achieve superintelligence, superlongevity, and superhappiness. The plan to do that might backfire for the current state of our world can't support such phenomena or, more to the point, they're failed evolutionary experiments.

To give you an idea of what I mean:

1. Superintelligence: Atlantis. FAIL!
2. Superlongevity: Adaptation to changes in environment currently only possible through sexual reproduction which, as you know, requires space for new offspring which is only possible if the old die. FAIL!
3. Superhappiness: Drug addiction. FAIL!

In very cheeky words, if nature were asked to opine on transhumanism, she would say, "Been there, done that, didn't work out"

A penny for your thoughts.

Given, the standard definition of consciousness as awareness of something and that something being either the self or one's environment, it appears that blocking sensations eliminates the latter i.e. awareness of one's environment from the get go. As for the other component of consciousness, awareness of the self, this seems to supervene on awareness of the environment i.e. only when one's aware of the environment does one become aware of the self as that which is aware of the environment. In short, once sensations are shut down, consciousness should also vanish i.e. existence comes to an end.

Mysticism, I hear, is about a certain kind of consciousness that I'm doubtful is real. One goal of mysticism is to be conscious without being conscious of something.

I suspect this is off-topic but I have a feeling it might be relevant at some level or in some sense.


Coming to the issue that the OP brings up for discussion, I'd say there's some confusion that needs to be cleared before we can arrive at a reasonable understanding of what existence means.

The first thing to note is consensus informs us that everything detectable, sense-based or instrument-based, is immediately classified as physical. If so, there can be no such thing as detectable and non-physical. What this means is there's no hope for someone trying to demonstrate the existence of the non-physical in terms of being detectable in some way or other.

That's an intriguing hypothesis. Most of these additive functions (meta-functions of survival, in a way) perhaps evolved after the human race mastered its own survival, to the extent that directing any other biological resources towards that end was merely decorative. — Aryamoy Mitra

I'm glad that you find it "...intriguing..." Aryamoy Mitra. Give it some thought. Isn't it strange that we identify ourselves with our minds (brains) when in fact it's just a platform for syncing the organ systems into the more or less harmonious process that we call living or life. The tendency to identify ourselves as brains/minds is instinctive and feels so natural that we completely forget to question its validity. To make matters worse, the illusion that the mind/brain is the head honcho is sustained by a vast and complex "mindscape" in which the mind usually resides, especially when the needs of the other organ systems are met i.e. when we're well fed. Occasionally, the brain is ejected from its comfort zone - disease, suffocation, pain, starvation, etc. - and the brain is rudely reminded of its true purpose which is to ensure the whole body is functioning in perfect or near-perfect unison.

Doesn't it remind you of a goat herder whose task is to ensure the well-being of his flock? I recall some stories and even seen some paintings that involve this profession. When there's no danger of predators, the goat herder simply plonks himself down on the grass or a rock and starts daydreaming only to be jarred into action at signs of predators eyeing his goats. The brain is just like the goat herder - its job is to look after the whole body just as the goat herder's is to care for his flock. However, there are times when the brain is free, just as the goat herder is, and that's when all the "fun" begins.

Admittedly, the term bears the negative connotation you've discussed - and it wasn't at the forefront of my mind, whilst creating this thread. Nonetheless, here's what I was suggesting:

By rationalizing their life, I'm implying that an individual seek and locate an underlying rationale, or a set of rationales that can engender, justify and/or demonstrate the proposition that their life is meaningful - therefore according them reason to continually exist, or an affirmation to their own being. For example, if one were a hedonist - they might instantly invoke that premise, to strive towards a life of mitigating sentient suffering, or maximizing the converse.

What I'm positing, is that if this process were undertaken in a manner that wasn't perfunctory - with sustained chains of reasoning - it'd almost certainly be arduous (since one might discover about themselves, or their being truths they'd rather not), and without an unequivocal end. — Aryamoy Mitra

An interesting thought to consider is this: If you survey non-human animals, even those allegedly closest to us - the great apes - you'll find that the brains of these animals are dedicated to one and only one function - coordination of the different systems in the body with the ultimate aim being survival for as long as possible for the entire organism.

In humans, this is also the case - the brain is the overall neuro-hormonal control center that harmonizes the various organ systems in order that we maximize our chances of survival. However, with humans, there's something else going on viz. the brain seems to have taken over and repositioned itself in the number 1 slot in the list of our priorities. What this means is the brain now thinks that the other organ systems are there to serve it. When this happens, the brain refuses to acknowledge its true purpose as nothing more than a conductor for the orchestra of organ systems that our bodies are made of and the rest, as you know, is history - the search for the meaning of life, a rationale for existence, is simply the brain attempting a coup d'etat, rather unsuccessfuly given the fact that the tentative consensus seems to be that life is meaningless.

Definitions of validate:

1. To prove a point. The results of the experiment validate the theory.

2. To endorse (a proposal): The committee is yet to validate the recommendations.

3. To confirm: I'm here to validate the calculations.

My two cents worth.

Yes, I can be happy knowing so little too, and I do still enjoy sitting reading philosophy books... — Jack Cummins

I can't quite place Neil deGrasse Tyson's comments in a specific kind of worldview except that his sentiments on the matter of how much we know, extending perhaps to how much we should know, seems to share similarities with the Biblical tale of Adam, Eve, The snake, and the tree of knowledge. God didn't want us to know certain things and thus his command to Adam and Eve to avoid the tree of knowledge. It's odd that this likeness between Neil deGrasse Tyson's views and the Adam and Eve story doesn't correlate all that well with Tyson's irreligion. Just saying, that's all for me. Have a good day.

And the problem is that we wish for answers and wish for grand meanings — Jack Cummins

Paraphrasing:
Interviewer: We know only 4% of what can be known
Neil deGrasse Tyson: [laughing] Yes, and I'm happy with that.

evil, insane, or God — Gregory

Sad that Jesus has, even after 2000 years, failed to convince people that there's a god despite all that he had to go through. Jesus, to me, is a synonym of futility; so much painstaking effort - miracle after miracle, death by crucifixion - and, quite literally, nothing, absolutely nothing, to show for it. We're not just debating the veracity of his deeds but in fact whether such a person even existed.

That out of the way, let's discuss C. S. Lewis's trilemma - evil OR insane OR god?

I'm sure Jesus was being sincere and did what he did in good faith. Unfortunately or fortunately, the seed of peace he thought he sowed - his teachings - became the seed of discord - wars (crusades), persecutions (Spanish Inquisition) and other events that can't be included in a children's book. Now that I realize, this should be used as test for whether any religion is actually good or not. Simply imagine writing a children's book on that religion - the more that has to be left out, the more dubious the religion is. The Children's Book Test. So, does Christianity pass this test? You decide.


Was Jesus insane? Depends on one's worldview. To a dyed-in-the-wool materialist-atheist, he definitely would come across as someone who's lost touch with reality. The diagnosis, of course, would be ambiguous with uncertainty as to whether Jesus was insane or inane. People of other persuasions would have an entirely different opinion though.

Was Jesus god? God would've done a better job of conveying his message of love and peace, right? That said, they say (whisper) "god works in mysterious ways".

I'm secure in my general unbelief — j0e

I didn't imply otherwise.

any evidence could make me believe in gods, ghosts, or ghouls — j0e

As much as it's a thorn in our side, it's an inescapable fact that given an observation, there are multiple hypotheses that fit it well. Then, whatever criterion one chooses, one of which is Ockham's razor, the usual thing to do is eliminate the impossible...whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth. My suggestion is that we tread carefully in matters such as god, free will, and life after death if only because so little is known about such metaphysical issues that even blind guessing may offer a better chance of successful truth-finding missions than rigorous logical inferences.

I don't believe in the immaterial soul, but I can imagine events that might convince me. If some Dr. Frankenstein could light up a corpse with dear grandma's departed soul, then I think it'd be reasonable to postulate some kind of 'non-physical' existence of this soul in between bodies. — j0e

I suppose there's merit in your argument but I'm certain there's a hole in your argument and that too an own goal so to speak. Two words, Akashic records.

Of course, of course. It's just a thought which I hoped would stimulate further discussion. Looks like they're a dead ends.

It seems, on reflection, what I was attempting wasn't to provide a actual proofs for god, free will, and life after death. What I aimed to do though was suggest some avenues of inquiry and offer plausible reasons as to why some of us are of the view that god, free will, and life after death exist. My intention was not so much to come up with good arguments as it was to explore, examine the conspicuous absence of such in these domains of metaphysics.

G'day!

One of the problems is the use of the word laws. This kind of smuggles in a lawmaker — Tom Storm

Not really. Science has laws of nature and it, as you already know, avoids god (a purported law maker).

The answer is the Tao — Tom Storm

Taoism is about conflict between opposites and the alleged harmony that ensues. In Taoism the clash of antipodal is as real as the equilibrium that reportedly results.

My opinion, for what it's worth, differs in that the polarity that we see, good-bad, light-dark, and so on, is an illusion and that there really is no difference, despite appearances, between opposites in the sense that they're, in terms of "laws", the same law in operation. I know this take differs from what I said earlier in the post that precedes this one but if there's anything common between the two, it's that what we assume/think are two, is actually one.

I hear you. I have seen people try to apply the foundations of reason to folk wisdom before and it can't work. I guess where you were coming from may have been the principle of non-contradiction - a thing isn't what it isn't. It that's so (and it is) - why would there be contradictions in folk wisdom? Answer - because, unlike logic, folk wisdom consists of sayings which are not tautologies or absolutes. They are situational recommendations. — Tom Storm

I was hoping for more from you but that's just me I guess. I get what you're saying - every situation has its own unique features that preclude any attempts at generalization - and I'm with you on that score. Nevertheless, isn't it rather mysterious that the laws of nature which are, scientists claim, universal in scope should give rise to a world in which no laws seem to cover all cases? Going by your responses, you seem interested enough in this topic and so, I would like to submit a request to you and it's to find, if you're up to the task, some rationale why a solid bedrock of universal laws (the so-called laws of nature) should give rise to a world (the world where sayings are meaningful) in which there are no such laws (each saying is applicable in different situations and no saying covers every situation) at all?

Imagine yourself creating a simulated universe, you come up with certain rules that can't be violated under any circumstances, something I suspect is necessary if your simulation is to succeed. You run the sim for a while and then, to your surprise, you find certain levels of the simulation can't be made sense of in terms of a universal laws but that they actually operate under two mutually contradictory set of laws which, in other words means, both the laws are violated at one time or another. Wouldn't that cause you some puzzlement?

To further elucidate my point take heavier-than-air flight. There was a time when if I claimed objects made of iron can fly that would've immediately qualified me as a patient in a mental asylum. Now, in this day and age, to make the exact opposite claim would have the same result. What this illustrates, if anything, is that the laws of nature aren't actually being violated but what's really happening is one law of nature, in this case laws of aerodynamics) is being used against another law of nature (gravity) and this appears to us as a transgression of a physical law. As you can see, this is exactly like the explanation you gave that which saying ("law") applies depends on the situation. Now, if I maybe so bold, your task is to provide an explanation similar to the one I did for heavier-than-air flight i.e. try and come up with how the "apparent" disharmony of mutually contradictory sayings is an illusion and that there's actually an underlying harmony.

existence of God, free will and, life after death — Jack Cummins

First, to attempt to prove god's existence is a waste of time for the simple reason that an immaterial being can't be proven in material terms. That would be like trying to prove penises exist with a woman.

Second, free will is real to the extent that there's a difference between giving someone your money when you feel like it and doing the same at gun point.

Third, life after death and again the same issue that was a stumbling block in re proving god rears its ugly head. The immaterial soul, that which allegedly survives death, can't be proven from within a material setting.

I've spent my life looking for the oomph factor. Let us know if you find it. — Tom Storm

:lol: Sorry for my lukewarm response to your explanation for why there are contradictory sayings. It's me and not its adequacy.

By the way, I just realized what I wanted from members who went through the OP viz. what such pairs of opposite recommendations, both of which, according to you, make complete sense, imply with respect to the nature of reality. For example, we can't generalize like in science à la the laws of nature which are universal; in fact, the "laws" of living the good life which sayings are about seem to flip flop between "do x" and "do the opposite of x". Isn't that odd? At the very least, that the scientific laws of nature, which are constant and govern all matter and energy [so say scientists] which includes us, should lead to a level of reality - that in which sayings dwell and apply - in which the "laws" (sayings) come in antipodal pairs, should make us want to take a closer look at this most intriguing state of affairs.

You chose the maxim that describes best the situation as you see it. The wisdom part is knowing which one applies. — Tom Storm

Makes sense but I was hoping for something much, I confess, grander. Forgive me if for my reluctance to fully endorse your perfectly good response but it seems to lack the, how shall I put it, oomph factor I'm looking for. Perhaps I'm pissing into the wind.

This is what the study of folk psychology addresses:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/folkpsych-theory/ — baker

Thanks for the link. Will report if I find anything interesting.

No I don't see the problem. — Tom Storm

He who hesitates is lost i.e. one must act quickly. Haste makes waste i.e. one mustn't act quickly — TheMadFool

Can you do both at the same time?

You really don't need to dig very far at all. — unenlightened

Well, from where I stand - looks and feels like quicksand - you've not given this enough thought. Unless you hit the right keys, you won't be able to make music is all I can say.

I don't see how this is a problem — Tom Storm

He who hesitates is lost i.e. one must act quickly. Haste makes waste i.e. one mustn't act quickly. You don't see a problem?

Nah. We study linguistics and the [u[meaning[/u] and role of idioms. — baker

I'm also open to the possibility, and think it more likely, that we I am confused. However, in my defense, the meanings definitely point in opposite directions. It's like arriving at a junction in our journey through life and you're relieved that there's a signpost to give you directions but when you read it, it says to succeed go LEFT and just below that are the words to succeed go RIGHT.

That out of the way, my aim is to find out how to make sense of these frank contradictions. Is there some context in which we could reconcile these opposing recommendations? Reminds me of Taoism. Could be a false lead though.

we are confused — javi2541997

Can we achieve some kind of harmonious unification of contradictions, assuming they are contradictions in the first place?

wisdom is useless — Tom Storm

Socratic Paradox: I know that I know nothing!!!

Wise sayings are always appliedafter the event. If a cooperative venture succeeds its a case of many hands, and if it fails, too many cooks. These things are not a guide to life, but a classification system. Confusion arises from taking cliches as advice, because the nature of cliches is that there is one applicable to every situation. That's why they are wise sayings; they encapsulate the wisdom of hindsight, and the main lesson of history is 'you never know.' — unenlightened

Interesting take but even if these sayings are generally after the fact, that they contradict each other is still an unresolved problem. Why should it be that, in one instance, too many cooks spoil the broth, and in another, many hands make light work? You might want to dig a little deeper.

Death of God — Tom Storm

This may come across as irrelevant but as per Isaac Newton, the English physicist of gravity fame, god has to continually make adjustments to keep the planets in their orbits around the sun. Thus, in a sense, since our solar system is still stable, god must be alive and well but, fortunately or unfortunately, not as smart as we make faer out to be :lol:

@180 Proof's words in his post here said something that touched a chord in me to wit, love has a past tense - loved - which, quite literally, demolishes, takes a wrecking ball to, all great love stories, including but not limited to that between a man and a woman; after all, the claim is that true love never dies but then a past tense for love?? It doesn't add up. Love is, in all probability, an illusion the mind creates to fool itself, a rationalization as it were to make itself look bigger than it actually is. My two cents.

Love always risks heartbreak; yet, it is written, 'hearts are made whole by breaking'. (Lost, after all, is the future tense of loved.)

:death: :flower:

For me, friendship (i.e. mutual care-pleasure-advantage ... re: I-You) is the highest form of love, and solidarity (for justice) is the highest form of friendship — 180 Proof

I love it when good ideas are put into even better words. Bravo! Keep it coming, sir/madam, as the case maybe. :lol:

Sorry. More noise. My definition please. — 180 Proof

It seems we've reached an impasse. Quite unfortunate. Have a good day.

Are truths useful? — FlaccidDoor

An interesting thought worth putting under the microscope. It goes without saying that people are susceptible to flattering lies and that the occasional white lie is far better than the bitter truth.

Nevertheless, in my humble opinion, we need to unpack this idea a little more to get to the bottom of this rather intriguing puzzle viz. the truth is lies are [sometimes] better than truths.

My take on this is that we're conflating two important concepts, each of equal importance to our well-being; one is lies [deception] and the other is, for lack of a better word, hypotheticals [non-deceptions]. Imagine there'a a woman who's conscious of her obesity. She asks me, after putting on a dress, "do I look fat?" The truth is not just that she looks fat but that she is fat but I discreetly respond, "no, you don't look fat at all". This is what we'd call a white lie. My response is an outright falsehood no doubt but the appeal that the white lie has doesn't come from its falsity but from its hypothetical nature i.e. the woman feels comforted by the white lie because she can imagine herself, hypothetically, that she's not fat and definitely not becauase of it being a faleshood.

It's kinda like me wanting to be X (my idol for instance) for whatever reason. Any pleasure or satisfaction I derive from this fervent desire doesn't arise from it being a falsehood but from it being a possibility, a hypothetical, that can, given the right circumstances, can be actualized.

Again, you're way off. I asked you to apply your analysis to my links in this post. Show me that your argument makes sense by using it to show me – which you haven't yet – that my definition of "moral good" doesn't make sense. Anything else, Fool, is just noise I've no interest in. — 180 Proof

I'm beginning to think you're right after all but I still have this nagging doubt about the morally good being definable in a way that's free from controversy. By the way I replied to that post you provided a link for.

Let's go through this together step by step.

X = the definition of good [any definition, yours and classic ones like utilitarianism, Kantian ethics will do]

My contention is that the question, Is X itself good? is as reasonable, as meaningful, as the question, is killing a defenseless person good?

What say you?

I agree with the animal part; the transition phase, not so much.

For one thing, what Steve Leard speaks of, require a great deal of passion. The trouble is that we are not passionate about the right things. Nothing new here. It's been a problem for a while (last 20,000 years).

We do not have time to evolve into better, godlier beings. We either will find a way to solve our present dilemmas, or we will cease and desist. — Bitter Crank

Indeed, you maybe right. I'm not making a truth claim as much as I'm trying to offer my own perspective on the matter. I have a feeling that, by virtue of our intellect in general and our powerful imagination in particular, we have, collectively, thought up a future image of ourselves we want to work towards achieving and that future image, going by how much we stress on rationality and how wary we are of our passions, whether such is fortunate or not, either excludes the passions completely or, if not that, relegates it to a necessary evil.

The issue is about defining "morally good" not about defining "morality". Don't move the goal posts. — 180 Proof

My bad. I must've failed to maintain that distinction. It's a jungle of concepts out there. To get lost is more the norm than the exception for a novice like myself. That out of the way, let's return to the issue of the definition of morally good. Suppose such a definition exists, call it X. The question then is, is X itself morally good. This line of inquiry is far from obvious and that's why so many have failed to examine it.

How do we, given morally good is defined as X, answer the question, is X itself good? Why does this even matter? one might ask. Well, if the definition X itself weren't morally good that would mean, in moral consequentialist terms, X causes suffering. That's not acceptable, right? After all, if that were the case, the definition would fail to satisfy its own criterion for morally good. That's why I feel the definition of morally good itself must be morally good. Of course there's no reason why a definition of morally good can't fulfill the conditions that decide whether something is morally good but that's a step that can only be taken if we already know what morally good is. In other words, we have to know what morally good is and that's nowhere close to being an open and shut case, right?

Posthumans or Nano Sapiens or ... — 180 Proof

If you say so. :up:

ecstasy - ex outside of; stasis - ‘business as usual’. — Wayfarer

I wonder, given what we know or more accurately what we think we know, if there are "silent" genes in plants, much like the letter "h" in honest that, that code for neural tissue and even arms and legs - "animal" bodies to be exact? Conversely, what if some of our genes, those so-called junk DNA, code for plant parts? That would be interesting, don't you think?

Perhaps one day we'll engineer "gods" (e.g. the Tech Singularity) but they will not be us. If we're lucky they will delay us taking our rightful place among Earth's fossil record by becoming our zookeepers (e.g. the Matrix). We're nothing more than 'godmaker animals' (... Feuerbach, Nietzsche, O. Stapledon, A.C. Clarke, F. Herbert, O. Butler, I.M. Banks...) because, as Sartre quipped, "man is a useless passion" or Freddy "man is a rope stretched between ... over an abyss." — 180 Proof

Bullseye! We can, if all goes well, merge with machines - mind uploads, cybernetics, etc. but this'll probably not happen in my lifetime - I envision a symbiotic relationship between humans and machines, a kind of quid pro quo deal. If not that then we should prepare to take, as you said, "our rightful place among Earth's fossil record" for the simple reason that we can't win a war against machines.

Initially, no doubt, it was deliberate ignorance maintained by threat and use of force. But how could that have been maintained for 400 years, worldwide? It couldn't - so there's factor missing, and that factor is missing here also on this forum, among the philosophers of the free world, to whom I have appealed. Why does the argument fail to influence people? Is it wrong? Is it me? Or, is it you? — counterpunch

Do you mean to imply that the people, the intelligentsia specifically, were in cahoots with the religious establishment and coordinated the 400 year period of scientific ignorance?

I suppose there's a grain of truth in that. Correct me if I'm wrong but scientists back then were actually supported - financially and morale-wise - by the church and the reason for doing that was to prove scriptural claims. As it turns out the church's plan backfired - observation, mostly astronomical, instead of lining up, as hoped, with the claims in the Bible actually contradicted religious doctrine. The rest is, as some would say, history.

Where is humanity going? :chin: It looks as though it (humanity) has come a long way from being scattered tribes of hunter-gatherers through subsistence farming communities to an industrial civilization now in the midst of an information revolution.

Unfortunately or fortunately, time will tell, we haven't made as much progress as we'd have liked in other areas, especially in morality and allied domains - we have yet to make a clean break from racism, speciesism, and other isms that, if given an opportunity, could cause widespread mayhem and undo all humanity's achievements thus far.

For my money, I'd say all this has to do with humans being in a transition phase between animals and something else. As animals we're under the influence of our passions and that usually spells trouble. As for what we're becoming, the something else, my hunch is gods - good, fair, just, wise and with the power to bring about positive change in the world.

He's welcome to demonstrate that "how adaptive they are for prosocially coexisting" doesn't amount to "going with the crowd" or "as the wind blows".

For example, ideas in favor of slavery were very adaptive for prosocially coexisting when living in a society where there was slavery. Were they therefore, morally good? — baker

Good point but I have a feeling that 180 Proof's idea of morality as "adaptive for prosocially existing" is nuanced enough to tackle this objection. I'm not sure though. Thanks.

That's an absurd statement. You need to study the human body. — synthesis

Really? Are you reading this sentence?

for 400 years — counterpunch

That's a lot of years. So many great thinkers flushed down the toilet by religious nutjobs. An ugly truth whose effects we still endure even as the 21st century approaches its golden jubilee. Ignorance, in my humble opinion, casts a long, very long, shadow.

The color red, all colors in fact, is through and through subjective i.e. it can't be brought out of, extracted from, the mind for display, a requirment to answer the OP's question in a meaningful way.

Nevertheless, we can't ignore the fact our sense organs are generic i.e. there seems to be no difference, at least in any obvious way, in re our sensory apparatus. Ergo, that my red is identical to your or other people's red isn't going to be as controversial as it should be for your question to be interesting at all.