How does an idea, a statement, such as (lets pick one out of thin air) "Concepts are natural functions of our brains" arise from molecules? I guess what I trying to ask is, what is the origin, the meaning, and the significance of the concept "morality", if the concept itself is nothing but the result of brute forces of chemistry or electricity?
What if the pulses of depolarization in my brain traverse different pathways? What if the molecules that produce the idea, "morality" happen to go a different direction? Does morality then change? What if the neurotransmitters produce the output, "Concepts are NOT natural functions of our brains"?
Under a purely naturalistic premise I think that my brain could only be physically obligated, not morally obligated because it would be operating completely and solely by physical forces. When a machine's actions are completely determined by physical forces, the moral intent cannot be known because the entire operation of the machine is based on coercion.
Yet we both know intuitively that I am morally obligated. Why?
Cordially,
Coercion? I think you're getting at a determinism which excludes the uncertainty inherent in physical systems. But this is strange, coming from you that is. I might give you the same answer you might give someone who says free will is not possible with a God who is omniscient. There is an easy way around that, philosophically, so why belabor the point from a physical position where the requirement for fatalism is far less absolute?
Although you don't come out and say so, you seem to imply that morality exists outside of ourselves. I say it's an emergent function of our brain. Why? Is there a 'why' that applies here? What about 'How'? That's what this research study is aiming at. And if morality is not a function of our brains, where does morality reside and what structure of our brain perceives this morality? You are ultimately left to answer exactly the same questions you pose to me.