Vlad the Misrepresentationist,
Firstly I'm happy that you have converted to moral realism even though you think your model to be correct.
You don’t know what “moral realism” means, and I haven’t converted to anything.
let me outline some problems.
You can try, but presumably you’ll attempt that only as a diversion away from the problem you gave yourself with two mutually contradictory statements. Why not deal with that instead?
You only have a circular argument to show that people are purely physical and hence a problem showing that morality is physical.
Wrong again. You never have grasped the meaning of circular reasoning have you, which is ironic given your fondness for doing it. Here’s a clue: finding there to be no reason to think that people are other than physical and asserting them necessarily to be only physical are not the same thing.
Secondly…
You don’t have a “secondly” because your effort at a firstly just collapsed.
…you need to present ''moral matter'' and SI units for morality and perhaps a particle for morality.
You’re just disintegrating into incoherence now. Why would units of measurement be needed for the evidence to stand nonetheless? What units of measurement for language or for aesthetics would you propose?
This in turn leads you into science of the gaps territory where science will eventually discover what morality is.
It can’t “lead” anywhere when it’s a false claim.
You have to come clean on what you want emergence to mean.....a new physical system or morality which is real in it's own right and not fully describable in terms of physics.
Don’t be silly. I don’t “want” emergence to mean anything – I just accept what it does mean. Are language or aesthetics “fully describable in terms of physics”? If not, are they too – according to you – just floating around “out there” somewhere?
You cannot retreat into moral irrealism having proposed the evolved morality, protomorality, emerged morality, and physical morality.
You cannot just retreat into incoherence and kid yourself that you’re making a point, so why keep doing it?
That should keep you busy.
Yes – for about the nanosecond it took to unravel.
I think we evolve into moral capability analogous to mathematical capability.
That’s nice for you. So?
Points in your post are debateable
Only by someone capable of debate, but by all means surprise us...
Suffice it to say you can take somebody's word on trust that you shouldn't do something without direct experience of that thing.
...or not.
Not when you have no comprehension of an unwelcome consequence if you do you can’t. If “all you know is good”, what difference would it make either way?
They were told not to do it The Gamble was status quo or to have it all.
No, there was no gamble – and nor could there have been when the only possible outcomes were good.
The first balls up caused by acquisitive materialism.
And back to the alphabet soup school of cod philosophy.
You crashed, you burned. Again. Move on.
