StickyWater said:

I actually brought that up before he did because I wanted him to have an argument to give rather than just saying I was wrong....

---

Quote:

and he replied to me by saying that I was just parroting mystical BS.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Have you ACTUALLY studied the Laws of Thermodynamics or are just spouting some mystical BS you read somewhere?

---

Quote:

All I ask for is a little respect when taking the time to share an idea with the community.

---

This is a debate-orientated forum. Your perception of not receiving enough respect is simply debate as usual. The rules of this forum specifically prohibit flaming and personalisms. If you are emotionally dissatisfied with how others choose to debate your ideas, then perhaps you should consider other forums in which to post them.

StickyWater said:

But could you not argue that the reason their mind will allow them to take certain moral routes as opposed to others is caused by the construct and chemistry within the brain? If the structure and chemistry isn't there to allow a reaction, then it wont occur. I guess it starts boiling down to a question of 'free will' almost at this point. And if the reason our minds associate the way that they do is due to the physical and chemical makeup of our minds? And with this said, is it that far of a jump to consider morality as well to be determined by the chemical and physical structure of the brain (keeping in mind that the brain is constantly changing). I agree that morality does not take a manifested form of energy or anything, but that morality is determined in a person by the chemistry and physical workings of their mind. Basically, if you knew everything about the human brain there was to know, and everything about science, then if you could take a photograph of a person in an environment through a camera that could capture the velocity of electrons and atoms, then you could determine what they were thinking about at that moment which made them perform the action leading to the following event, as well as all the science at play within their bodies and the environment around them to make this work. If you continued expanding this picture over a larger environment with more objects, then theoretically you could apply the same logic on a significantly larger scale with far more subjects monitored, and you could perhaps predict the actions of a town's population through the day to a certain margin of error (since that still wouldn't be a universal measurement of this) by running a computer simulation programmed with all the laws that govern atomic reactions, and inputting an atomic picture of an event and subject, the computer would be able to show a logical cause and effect reaction between absolutely everything around the subject influencing everything at once. From our thoughts of being hungry in the morning to getting run down by a car on your way to get breakfast.

Of course that's far too small of an example to actually be able to express in this matter without perhaps an image of the entire country, but there's no point in arguing the technical accuracies of something impossible at this point.

---