Dr. Robert was right about at least one thing. You are intellectually quite dishonest which is the sign of a second rate mind at best. After asking him to offer some scientific evidence for his idea and then implying that he had none and was just making stuff up, you completely ignored the evidence he did offer you. Never commented on it, never even acknowledged it. I took a look at it, and it does seem to support his idea, and these were neurological experiments with MRI's of brains and all that.
I know your game, I have played your game, I see your game, and it's a loser called I'm Always Right. No wonder the doc cut you off. You deserved it.
I agree ROR and it's even worse that that because all of the guy's words adds up to nothing. Not that the experiments might not have been interesting but the idea that physical impairment of the brain can cause changes in consciousness is obvious and proves little which has not been known for decades or even centuries. Yes I guess that zeroing in on the actual cells responsibile is interesting in its way, but has nothing to do with what the Doc or James were talking about. Zenemy is one of those guys whose estimation of his own intellect is way out of line with what he really comes up with and he is blind to it because he is all ego and nothing else. I watched some of the truly bright people on this forum like Daniel debate things with the Doctor and those were good discussions because there was respect and listening on both sides and the Doctor is super bright and well informed and doesn't mind sharing ideas. This guy Zemeny doesn't know what he is talking about and is afraid to face up to being in a group of people like James and the Doctor who do know a thing or two. So he just ignores what they say and goes on raving.
Riddle me this, smart people. What does all of the preceeding discussing mean for morality's ontological status, in your opinion?
Morality ultimately resides in the ideas and behaviour of humans (assume that there are no smart, ethical aliens for the moment).
Thus, if there were no humans, morality wouldn't be.
However, we seem to have developed it for beneficial evolutionary reasons. I'd wager that for any animal broadly similar to us, something like morality and group dynamics would develop.
Of course, one can't know this, there's loads of good sci-fi built on this not being the case, but in the same way the complex eye replicates itself again and again in nature, in multifacetedd ways, in drastically different creatures. Consider how different an insect, octopod and mammalian eye are. But having an eye confers such an advantage on a planet such as this, so these diverse animals all have them.
So it's as if we can say, that for a certain type of animal, in X, Y and Z conditions, its a FACT that an eye is advantages.
It's an odd thing, a fact like this. What's its ontological status? It is supervenient on more fundamental rules of nature. If there were no planets in the universe, as there weren't in it's early history, then in a sense there was no geography. Yet as soon as planet begin to form, they do so in certain consistent and rationally comprehendible ways, and we have geography, with geographical facts. Geography exists, factually, but only when there are bodies to which it applies
In the same way, morality exists, when there are moral agents (not that I believe they have agency). Language exists only when there are those that can speak it, yet linguistics can be considered a science, with its own OBJECTIVE facts (basics structures of all human grammar and so on).
So is morality objective, actually existing? Yes, but supervening on other natural facts, and laws.
As to what the natural law, physics, reality that these things are derived from really are, ontologically speaking... It's late, I just finished a shift and that's a long pitch. My monism is getting the best of me.
What I've written is very skatty, but hopefully I gave some sort of idea. I'll update when I can if it interests you. And I need to read that article. and pick up on some of FamFive's points.