Is morality objective or subjective?

[henry quirk]

There is only one substance. Mind and matter are different ways by means of which we think of the one substance.

Dual aspect theory: fence sittin'.

[Peter Holmes]

If Pete wants to win the argument he actually has to commit to dualism/mentalism.

Hell, I'd be satisfied if he'd admit he doesn't know how imagination works.

We call a complex electrochemical process in our brains 'imagining things'.

Irritated substance dualist: Yeah, but what is the imagination, and how does it work? You just can't answer that question.

How can consciousness arise from matter? Answer: there's no way it can, so it must be immaterial/non-physical.

Next question: how can the immaterial/non-physical arise from matter? Answer: it doesn't, it just exists, like spirits and gods.

QED

[Skepdick]

We call a complex electrochemical process in our brains 'imagining things'.

What or where is a "process" ? I've never seen one - you must be imagining things!

Also... didn't you just insist that "What we call water is H2O".

So what or where is a "brain"? Isn't a brain just a bunch of atoms?

[henry quirk]

We call a complex electrochemical process in our brains 'imagining things'.

In other words: Henry, I have no clue how it is you or I or anyone can picture sumthin'. When it's cold and rainy, and I imagine or remember or anticipate a warm, sunny day, I don't have an explanation for how I do it. But: there must be a material explanation, and one day -- by golly -- science will prove it.

Okeedoke.

[henry quirk]

Isn't a brain just a bunch of atoms?

Well, of course! And sumthin' (don't ask Pete what) in that particular collection of atoms results in you and me and Pete goin' 'round & 'round with ideas (whatever those are) and musings (whatever those are) and arguments (whatever those are).

Somehow (though Pete can't say how [but it must be a physical how cuz anything else is just woo]) that collection of atoms results in a Henry, a Skep, a Pete, three distinct and unique perspectives (whatever those are) capable of considerin' (whatever that is) those ideas, musings, and arguments.

Again: Pete can't say how any of this happens, but -- trust him on this-- it's all material, and science will demonstrate it...someday.

[Peter Holmes]

Isn't a brain just a bunch of atoms?

Well, of course! And sumthin' (don't ask Pete what) in that particular collection of atoms results in you and me and Pete goin' 'round & 'round with ideas (whatever those are) and musings (whatever those are) and arguments (whatever those are).

Somehow (though Pete can't say how [but it must be a physical how cuz anything else is just woo]) that collection of atoms results in a Henry, a Skep, a Pete, three distinct and unique perspectives (whatever those are) capable of considerin' (whatever that is) those ideas, musings, and arguments.

Again: Pete can't say how any of this happens, but -- trust him on this-- it's all material, and science will demonstrate it...someday.

Argument from ignorance and/or incredulity fallacy.

We know that brains exist, and we increasingly know what electrochemical processes go on - what synapses fire and where they fire - when certain experiences, such as seeing things and visualising them occur (both in the visual cortex, to my knowledge). And we know how chemicals can change the experience of consciousness. This is empirical and testable evidence for the physical basis of consciousness.

Now, when you say I (we) can't explain how what we call 'imagining' happens, you're just ignoring the accumulating evidence that we can explain it. So your claim is false, or at least not shown to be true.

And meanwhile, to my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any non-physical causation of anything whatsoever, including for what causes what goes on in our brains. So, Henry, over to you. The burden of proof is yours.

(Spoiler: to my knowledge, evidence for the existence of non-physical causation of brain activity is like evidence for the existence of souls, ghosts, fairies, devils, angels and gods: zero, zilch, nada, tipota, none whatsoever. Which sucks for supernaturalists.)

[Skepdick]

Argument from ignorance and/or incredulity fallacy.

We know that brains exist, and we increasingly know what electrochemical processes go on - what synapses fire and where they fire - when certain experiences, such as seeing things and visualising them occur (both in the visual cortex, to my knowledge). And we know how chemicals can change the experience of consciousness. This is empirical and testable evidence for the physical basis of consciousness.

The experience of consciousness?

What goobledygook is this? I think I have a genuinge grasp on what experience is. I am experiencing hunger right now. I am experiencing the berrze from my fan. I am expernencing the music playing.

I have never expreienced "consciousness". Do I even have any? Where?

[henry quirk]

we increasingly know what electrochemical processes go on - what synapses fire and where they fire - when certain experiences, such as seeing things and visualising them occur (both in the visual cortex, to my knowledge).

Translation: I can point to bits of brain and tell you, with great confidence, that when you see or imagine or anticipate it's solely becuz sumthin' or other is happening in those specific brain bits. I can't tell you exactly what's happening or how any of that happening stuff translates into actual images you can see when you remember or imagine. And, no, I can't tell you how all that happening stuff translates into you, the consciousness that calls itself Henry Quirk but it's all material...really, it is.

And meanwhile, to my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any non-physical causation of anything whatsoever, including for what causes what goes on in our brains. So, Henry, over to you. The burden of proof is yours.

Here's a couple of evidences you can start with...

Wilder Penfield's work with epileptics. He, a committed materialist, was convinced, by way of his research, mind is sumthin' more than, or other than, brain.

Hemispherectomy: removal or disabling of half or more of the brain to correct dysfunction. The procedure, remarkably, has no effect on identity. The person is still himself even after half or more of what is considered, by materialists, to be the seat of intelligence and personality is removed or rendered moot.

Score: Henry-2; Pete-0

[Peter Holmes]

we increasingly know what electrochemical processes go on - what synapses fire and where they fire - when certain experiences, such as seeing things and visualising them occur (both in the visual cortex, to my knowledge).

Translation: I can point to bits of brain and tell you, with great confidence, that when you see or imagine or anticipate it's solely becuz sumthin' or other is happening in those specific brain bits. I can't tell you exactly what's happening or how any of that happening stuff translates into actual images you can see when you remember or imagine. And, no, I can't tell you how all that happening stuff translates into you, the consciousness that calls itself Henry Quirk but it's all material...really, it is.

And meanwhile, to my knowledge, there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any non-physical causation of anything whatsoever, including for what causes what goes on in our brains. So, Henry, over to you. The burden of proof is yours.

Here's a couple of evidences you can start with...

Wilder Penfield's work with epileptics. He, a committed materialist, was convinced, by way of his research, mind is sumthin' more than, or other than, brain.

I wasn't aware Penfield's work in neuro-science and brain surgery lead him to that conclusion. Can you cite anything that indicates it did?

Hemispherectomy: removal or disabling of half or more of the brain to correct dysfunction. The procedure, remarkably, has no effect on identity. The person is still himself even after half or more of what is considered, by materialists, to be the seat of intelligence and personality is removed or rendered moot.

This does nothing to demonstrate that there is non-natural causation in the brain.

Score: Henry-0. (No one else playing - no other burden of proof.)

[Skepdick]

This does nothing to demonstrate that there is non-natural causation in the brain.

One hundred billion points for this genius.

If there are no non-natural causation in the brain, then ALL causation in the brain is natural.

Moral ideas are a product of natural causation in the brain. Moral behavior is the product of natural causation in the brain.
Natural causation in the brain results in natural, physical change elsewhere in the physical/material world (by supervenience)

Therefore morality is objective.

Why is the guy who keeps claiming "Things are what we say they are - there is nothing beneath our linguistic practices" having so much trouble understanding that murder is wrong because we say it's wrong? And we say that murder is objectively wrong BECAUSE murder is immoral; and BECAUSE morality is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

Natural (physical) causation - that A causes B - inside or outside brains - has no moral significance or implication. That A should or ought to cause B is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Another reason why morality isn't objective. Nul point.

[Skepdick]

Natural (physical) causation - that A causes B - inside or outside brains - has no moral significance or implication. That A should or ought to cause B is a matter of opinion, not a fact. Another reason why morality isn't objective. Nul point.

"Should or ought" is normative talk. Your counter-argument is null.

Whether A "should" or "ought" to cause B is some incoherent rambling when A actually causes B.

Natural causation in the brain causes human behavior. Therefore morality is objective.

[Peter Holmes]

The following assertions constitute a coherent - because non-contradictory - argument.

1 There are features of reality that are or were the case, and that have nothing to do with what we believe, know or say about them.

2 Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And the facts about our linguistic practices are out in the open.

3 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. Saying something is so does not make it so.

4 The claim that there are moral features of reality incurs a burden of proof - unmet so far, to my knowledge.

[Skepdick]

The following assertions constitute a coherent - because non-contradictory - argument.

2 Signs such as words can mean only what we use them to mean. And the facts about our linguistic practices are out in the open.

3 There is no foundation, for what we say, beneath our linguistic practices. Saying something is so does not make it so.

Contradiction !

From 2: The word/sign "red" is used to mean this color.
From 3: Saying this color is red does not make it red.

So this color is red (2), but it is not red (3).

How much air have you stolen by breathing?

[Peter Holmes]

When we don't understand something, sometimes it helps to try thinking really really hard about it.