[Chris Noble]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

I am not religious and I hold no fundamentalist viewpoint. If the evidence, is replicated by other researchers in future that people told they are 'just a pack of neurons' or similar are more inclined to cheat, well let us follow the evidence wherever it leads.

I find the phrase "follow the evidence wherever it leads" to be vacuous. ID proponents use it in exactly the same way. They spend an inordinate amount of time with the pretence that they aren't starting with their metaphysical views and looking for evidence to support it.

I am not convinced these are 'independent from supernatural belief' (whether real or not). Why, should one continue to follow a traditional belief if one is just a pack of neurons?

You are begging the question. You are assuming that a "pack of neurons" is incapable of feeling empathy and love for other "packs of neurons" and that they are incapable of reason.

What if you are right and computers can be made conscious, is it wrong to kill computers too? In physicalism why is killing a baby more wrong than killing a computer program? Also what is definitely morally wrong in physicalism?

Your last sentence is revealing. Fundamentalist Christians view their religion as the primary source of all knowledge including morality. They falsely assume that a scientific theory such as evolution must also supply moral instruction. This is where they go on the tirade that "Darwinism" was responsible for Hitler. Evolution does not determine morals anymore than thermodynamics does. The idea of thermodynamical morality is ridiculous. I don't see why morality should be derivable from "physicalism" anymore than it should be derivable from thermodynamics.

Perhaps I've learnt why some people hold such strong beliefs about the supernatural. If they are tied up with ideas about morality then they are very personal.

I tend to agree, I would tell them to listen to their 'conscience' not just to rationalize what is right or wrong (I doubt it can be rationalized from a 'pack of neurons' ) ... but unlike you I am not convinced consciousness or conscience is a brain function that evolved via physical natural selection, I seriously consider the probability mind and brain are not the same and something is evolving outside our physical brains, outside our physical reality too.

I think both our conscience and reason should inform our morality.

Mirror neurons give us some clues about how we feel empathy for other human and non-human animals. Altruism can also arise though natural selection. I really don't see what the problems are.

Few people would deny that human drives such as appetite arose through natural selection and revolve around getting nutrients to supply us with energy and build blocks for our physical bodies. Does that I shouldn't enjoy going to restaurants and eating good food?