SEP: Supervenience in Ethics

[Veritas Aequitas]

Supervenience is a claim about dependence in changes of one thing on changes in another thing.

The common claim is "mental states supervene on brain states".

That means the following things are true:

If person A and person B have the same brain-state, they have the same mental state.
If person A and person B have different mental states, they must also have different brain states.
However, there are potentially situations where person A and person B have different brain states but the same mental state.

The same formulation effectively applies to all other uses of 'supervenience'. So, "moral facts supervene on natural facts" means:

If state A and state B have the same natural facts, they have the same moral facts.
If state A and state B have different moral facts, they must also have different natural facts.
However, there are potentially situations where state A and state B have different natural facts but the same moral facts.

So far, your only example is about the mirror neurons of a person. "If you change the mirror neurons of this person, that changes his moral facts in some way." As far as I can tell, the only moral fact that changes about a person if you change their mirror neurons is how they feel about the morality of various actions.

A person with a shit load of mirror neurons might be unwilling to break someone's knee caps for the mafia, because it feels wrong.

A person with no mirror neurons might be willing to, because it doesn't really feel like anything at all to break the kneecaps of another human.

Changing mirror neurons affects how people feel about the morality of things they might do. If that's not the kind of "moral fact" you intend to talk about, VA, you aren't doing a good job of clarifying your position.

People are showing curiosity in your ideas but you aren't putting any real effort into clarifying what they are.

If state A and state B have the same natural facts, they have the same moral facts.
If state A and state B have different moral facts, they must also have different natural facts.
However, there are potentially situations where state A and state B have different natural facts but the same moral facts.

Give us some more edifying examples of moral supervenience using the above three lines as a guide.

This post was written by a human being.

Strawman.
I had not referred to 'feel' i.e. the subjective feelings in relation to mirror neurons.
What I am referring to is the moral competency, i.e. moral quotient [MQ] like IQ.

Say human intelligence [IQ] supervened upon a certain set of neurons in the human brain.
If there are changes in the set of neurons related to intelligence, there will be a corresponding change in the intelligence competence [IQ] of the person.
A person may feel happy, proud and egoistic with his intelligence competence and feel bad if his intelligence competence is reduced to the various reasons; this does not obviate the fact that a certain set of neurons in his brain supporting the concept of intelligence in all human beings.
So, intelligence is a fact of human nature which is represented physically by a specific set of neurons in the brain.

So with morality, I am interested in the moral facts, i.e. the moral competence with reference to 'killing of humans' related to empathy as support by a specific set of physical neurons in process and actions.

ALL humans are evolved with mirror neurons of which some are related to morality, i.e. their associated activities are moral facts as supervened upon natural facts.
When a person's mirror neurons are damaged or dormant, a person could just kill without any feelings at all. Many murderers declared they just do not understand how they ended killing someone.

Even for moral judgements from moral feelings, they supervened on a specific set of physical neurons in the brain that is universal in the human brain.

The above is a complex issue, but the general point is based on the principles of supervenience, there are moral facts supervened upon natural facts as explained above and they are not related to subjective feelings.

The above justified moral facts are contrasted with 'there are moral facts because God said so or x said so.'

[Flannel Jesus]

Boooo

[Iwannaplato]

Strawman.
I had not referred to 'feel' i.e. the subjective feelings in relation to mirror neurons.

Every time you used the word empathy, you referring to feelings. And if feeIings were not a part of your modeI of empathy, then you were confused about it. And when we write about an oughtness not to kill, we are talking about something that must include feelings

What I am referring to is the moral competency, i.e. moral quotient [MQ] like IQ.

No, no, that's not what an oughtness not to kiII is Iike. Perhaps some kind of consequentiaIism couId be described that way, where you have to caIcuIate things.

Say human intelligence [IQ] supervened upon a certain set of neurons in the human brain.
If there are changes in the set of neurons related to intelligence, there will be a corresponding change in the intelligence competence [IQ] of the person.

A person may feel happy, proud and egoistic with his intelligence competence and feel bad if his intelligence competence is reduced to the various reasons; this does not obviate the fact that a certain set of neurons in his brain supporting the concept of intelligence in all human beings.

I mean, read that sentence. The set of neurons in his his brain supporting the concept of inteIIigence in a human beings????????

So, intelligence is a fact of human nature which is represented physically by a specific set of neurons in the brain.

This is confIating supervenience with causation. You have an impIied strawman above with the tangent having to do with peopIe may have feeIings about their inteIIigence, which has nothing to do with FJ's point.

So with morality, I am interested in the moral facts, i.e. the moral competence

MoraI competence is not another way of saying moraI facts.

with reference to 'killing of humans' related to empathy as support by a specific set of physical neurons in process and actions.

ALL humans are evolved with mirror neurons of which some are related to morality, i.e. their associated activities are moral facts as supervened upon natural facts.

ActuaIIy they are behavioraI, attitudinaI patterns supervened on brain states or neuronal patterns.

When a person's mirror neurons are damaged or dormant, a person could just kill without any feelings at all. Many murderers declared they just do not understand how they ended killing someone.

But of course most peopIe who kill have mental states supervened on neurons, etc. and those neurons are part of heathy brains. And there are feeIings invoIved. Further this is aIso an impIicit strawman since it isn't a response to what FJ wrote.

The above is a complex issue, but the general point is based on the principles of supervenience, there are moral facts supervened upon natural facts as explained above and they are not related to subjective feelings.

Without the feeIing, you have no empathy. Without empathy, which is driven by feeIing what the other (apparantIy) feeIs, you have no motivation to care about the other.

And you continue to conflate the existence of attitudes that we name moraI with any particuIar moraIity.

And you are stiII not responding to FJ

The above justified moral facts are contrasted with 'there are moral facts because God said so or x said so.'

Superveniece doesn't justify the existence of moraI facts.

I've realized now that you say strawman a lot, when in fact nearly every post, with some exceptions, is a kind of strawman post on your part. Why? Since your post doesn't address the points made. You restate your opinions or make new points but which do not address the points made by the other person. You do not integrate the points they make in your response. The quoting indicates you are responding, when you don't. That's a strawman.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Strawman.
I had not referred to 'feel' i.e. the subjective feelings in relation to mirror neurons.

Every time you used the word empathy, you referring to feelings. And if feeIings were not a part of your modeI of empathy, then you were confused about it. And when we write about an oughtness not to kill, we are talking about something that must include feelings

There are many levels to feelings and emotion, i.e. from the very subjective to the objective.
See:
Are Feelings Facts?
viewtopic.php?t=42562

What I am referring to is the moral competency, i.e. moral quotient [MQ] like IQ.

No, no, that's not what an oughtness not to kiII is Iike. Perhaps some kind of consequentiaIism couId be described that way, where you have to caIcuIate things.

What I am saying it is not about the mental states of one feeling or the urge to kill.
You are lost on this.
I don't bother to explain unless we come to it again somewhere.

Say human intelligence [IQ] supervened upon a certain set of neurons in the human brain.
If there are changes in the set of neurons related to intelligence, there will be a corresponding change in the intelligence competence [IQ] of the person.

A person may feel happy, proud and egoistic with his intelligence competence and feel bad if his intelligence competence is reduced to the various reasons; this does not obviate the fact that a certain set of neurons in his brain supporting the concept of intelligence in all human beings.

I mean, read that sentence. The set of neurons in his his brain supporting the concept of inteIIigence in a human beings????????

Why so ignorant?
A person intelligence can change in correlation to the relevant set of neurons.
Damage to that set of neuron will reduce the IQ of the person.

So, intelligence is a fact of human nature which is represented physically by a specific set of neurons in the brain.

This is confIating supervenience with causation. You have an impIied strawman above with the tangent having to do with peopIe may have feeIings about their inteIIigence, which has nothing to do with FJ's point.

Supervenience is basically about causation, else how did changes in X results in changes in Y.

So with morality, I am interested in the moral facts, i.e. the moral competence

MoraI competence is not another way of saying moraI facts.

I have already explained, whatever is moral facts is contingent upon a moral FSERC.
In this case a moral FSERC is presumed.

with reference to 'killing of humans' related to empathy as support by a specific set of physical neurons in process and actions.

ALL humans are evolved with mirror neurons of which some are related to morality, i.e. their associated activities are moral facts as supervened upon natural facts.

ActuaIIy they are behavioraI, attitudinaI patterns supervened on brain states or neuronal patterns.

I have already explained, whatever is moral facts is contingent upon a moral FSERC.
In this case a moral FSERC is presumed.

When a person's mirror neurons are damaged or dormant, a person could just kill without any feelings at all. Many murderers declared they just do not understand how they ended killing someone.

But of course most peopIe who kill have mental states supervened on neurons, etc. and those neurons are part of heathy brains. And there are feeIings invoIved. Further this is aIso an impIicit strawman since it isn't a response to what FJ wrote.

Note the nuances related to feeling.
When a person is murderer, there is something abnormal in the brain which is related to changes to moral facts supervened upon natural facts.

The above is a complex issue, but the general point is based on the principles of supervenience, there are moral facts supervened upon natural facts as explained above and they are not related to subjective feelings.

Without the feeIing, you have no empathy. Without empathy, which is driven by feeIing what the other (apparantIy) feeIs, you have no motivation to care about the other.

And you continue to conflate the existence of attitudes that we name moraI with any particuIar moraIity.

And you are stiII not responding to FJ

That is because you do not understand 'Ethical Supervenience'.
I don't deny empathy is associated with feelings but there are nuances to it.
When mirror neurons mirror an external activity, this could lead to spontaneous reactions without any conscious feelings of it.

The above justified moral facts are contrasted with 'there are moral facts because God said so or x said so.'

Superveniece doesn't justify the existence of moraI facts.

I've realized now that you say strawman a lot, when in fact nearly every post, with some exceptions, is a kind of strawman post on your part. Why? Since your post doesn't address the points made. You restate your opinions or make new points but which do not address the points made by the other person. You do not integrate the points they make in your response. The quoting indicates you are responding, when you don't. That's a strawman.

Did you read the SEP article thoroughly?
Moral realists rely on supervenience to justify there are moral facts but there are arguments against it.

[Flannel Jesus]

Strawman

[FlashDangerpants]

He's been doing inherent 'oughtnesses' for years. His argument doesn't use supervenience.

[Iwannaplato]

He's been doing inherent 'oughtnesses' for years. His argument doesn't use supervenience.

Even when it does. But I'm sure that 'supervenience will, in the end, should he continue to use it, tease out more of the problems with his 'oughtnesses'. Give us new ways to describe the problems at least.

[Iwannaplato]

Strawman

Precisely. I think we've often gotten used to not being responded to, despite being quoted. So, we work with that, repeat the question or critique. Point out how the response wasn't a response or justification. When in fact the short road to all this is simply to point out that his responses are strawman responses, tangents or repetition.

[FlashDangerpants]

He's been doing inherent 'oughtnesses' for years. His argument doesn't use supervenience.

Even when it does. But I'm sure that 'supervenience will, in the end, should he continue to use it, tease out more of the problems with his 'oughtnesses'. Give us new ways to describe the problems at least.

He's always had the problem that he is creating his argument backwards. The whole and only real point was for him to be in charge of ordering and sorting everything in the world. Everything else is just randomly accreted, he picks some passing fantasy argument and glues it to the rest with no notion of coherence or continuity. It is done with the same level of discrimination that you might get from a sea mollusc using passing crisp packets and egg cartons to enlarge its shell. This entire sub is now defined by one man's autistic sorting obsessions. Except the other bits which belong to a relgious maniac.

[Iwannaplato]

He's been doing inherent 'oughtnesses' for years. His argument doesn't use supervenience.

Even when it does. But I'm sure that 'supervenience will, in the end, should he continue to use it, tease out more of the problems with his 'oughtnesses'. Give us new ways to describe the problems at least.

He's always had the problem that he is creating his argument backwards. The whole and only real point was for him to be in charge of ordering and sorting everything in the world. This entire sub is now defined by one man's autistic sorting obsessions. Except the other bits which belong to a relgious maniac.

If you mean he has a conclusion so he tries to find what might either 1) justify (what 'has to be' true) 2) somehow undermine opponents, I think that's common. I've done that. It's not a bad practical strategy either. I have to get out of this room. There seems to be no exit. I will assume there is an exit. I think those people will get out more often. I would say the problem is not being able to see the forest for the trees. There are all these inconsistent temporary fixes. Which is also fine, in and of itself, but it's not a coherent position.

[Flannel Jesus]

Strawman

Precisely. I think we've often gotten used to not being responded to, despite being quoted. So, we work with that, repeat the question or critique. Point out how the response wasn't a response or justification. When in fact the short road to all this is simply to point out that his responses are strawman responses, tangents or repetition.

I just like declaring "strawman" like an idiot ass hole. I don't even start with "hey I think you misunderstood my point here", just right to "you dishonest fuck, I hate you and I'm going to put your penis through a paper shredder." 0-60, that's how me and VA roll, just a couple of ass holes who assume the worst.

[Iwannaplato]

I just like declaring "strawman" like an idiot ass hole. I don't even start with "hey I think you misunderstood my point here", just right to "you dishonest fuck, I hate you and I'm going to put your penis through a paper shredder." 0-60, that's how me and VA roll, just a couple of ass holes who assume the worst.

It is a lovely feeling writing strawman. And there's no need for analysis. I think you're on to something though I am too laden with guilt to use it. [slinks off]

[Flannel Jesus]

I just like declaring "strawman" like an idiot ass hole. I don't even start with "hey I think you misunderstood my point here", just right to "you dishonest fuck, I hate you and I'm going to put your penis through a paper shredder." 0-60, that's how me and VA roll, just a couple of ass holes who assume the worst.

It is a lovely feeling writing strawman. And there's no need for analysis. I think you're on to something though I am too laden with guilt to use it. [slinks off]

Ad hom

[Iwannaplato]

Ad hom

Note your response is of a dogmatic ideology driven by an evolutionary default, thus very primal and primitive.

[Flannel Jesus]

Ad hom

Note your response is of a dogmatic ideology driven by an evolutionary default, thus very primal and primitive.

That's a very narrow response compared to my broader perspective. I asked chat gpt and it says:

The universe is an intricate dance.

Can't get any broader than that.