"Free will was given to man by god."

[attofishpi]

Funny that people all still want to argue. Determinism says that that can "change" nothing.

Did you mean, determinism says that MAN can change nothing?

Right. As bizarre as that sounds, that's actually the most important point Determinists hope to make you believe.

It means that even man is merely a product of prior cosmic forces. For some reason (a reason that Determinists can never explain), man THINKS his decisions "change" things -- but according to Determinism, this is just an illusion. His "choices" were all foreordained by causal precedents to come out just one way anyway.

Ya, I knew this - but thanks - I was just checking since I wasn't certain regarding your grammar.

[Immanuel Can]

Ya, I knew this - but thanks - I was just checking since I wasn't certain regarding your grammar.

Okay.

[gaffo]

I think DNA make our morality

Can you explain that?

I'll try my best.

How does a sequence in DNA issue in particular moral determinations?

DNA codes for physical and emotional, and maybe even rational thought (or "that seems rational" - to me, you, but maybe not an Alien or whale - lol, I'm not a whale nor an alien (though think sometimes i'm the latter - lol - this is conjecture (per Reason - on my part) they may have their verion of reason, as well as emotions and physicallity - all determined by DNA.

human DNA does not make all have the same morality, but what is below cultural mores of morality is universal - so the sub-basement of Morality is coded directly in all humans from a millions years ago to today. so we all have the same sub-basement of morality.

--------

I'll give an example, of a physical-emotional reflex (it only requires human DNA - no pondering required.

when anyone is placed in a circumstance not for-known:

you walk into a house willnilly expecting to see your friend/mom/stranger/etc............and walk into a room where said person is drawn and quartered.

what do you do? think about the morality of the situation? blah blah.

no you THROW UP - why? DNA

its the instinctive "poison response" the same physical response when you drink too much or take poison - body throws up to ride the poison!

but why do you throw up seeing a dissmembered stranger - you did not eat him, so no need for the same response!

why you do is due to the linking of "poison" (a personal threat to you biologically) with "morality" DNA of man as a social animal and we instinctively get sick when we see dissmembered persons when not expecting too.
(we do the same for smells, the small of death will give the same response) - the small is not lethal to the smeller - but our "social DNA" equates the smell with the vision of the drawn and quartered person - to a direct poison take by you personally.

same physical response.

hence my belief that the foundation - sub-basement of conventional morality (regardless of time and culture) - is directly DNA based via man as a social animal, and is the same regardless of culture/race/time/etc.

I understand how it issues in physiological features...at least, to some extent.

I gave you an example of a physical response, throwing up - but that is linked to the emotional response (both instintive) of "OMG threat!"

But how does DNA make us moral (or presumably, immoral)?

all men are moral due to being born via nature as a social animal - and since a social animal has to be moral!

otherwise nature would have made us extinct millinia ago.

- there is no such thing as immoral genes imo. there are 99-percent of us born with "moral genes" and the 1-percent born with none or less moral genes, but not immoral genes.

Well, I think it's pretty clear that that puts the emphasis on the Determinist. He owes us to show us Determinism is true. If he can't, then why should we think it, since people are instinctively and universally disposed to act as if it exists.
And he owes us not merely to suggest how it "could be so," since things in a contingent universe "could be" many ways, but that it actually IS so. And how would he do that? But if so, the free-will proponent surely gets the win. Everybody already acts and believes that what the free-willian believes is true -- and though I have met many convinced Determinists, I have never met even one of them who lived like Determinism was true for him.

logical point - point given.

Fair enough.

Nice talking to you.

and you as well, i like talking with you, you seem like an honourable and honest fella.

look forward to talking with you here or on other threads in the future.

[Immanuel Can]

we all have the same sub-basement of morality.

I think I almost get your point: a "sub-basement" is a metaphor, obviously, so it's a bit tough for me to get an exact picture of it.

--------

I'll give an example, of a physical-emotional reflex (it only requires human DNA - no pondering required.

Okay. But that would show only that a certain physical response occurs in the presence of an emotion...but not that the response was moral/immoral.

And if someone did not have that response...as there are people who do not -- psychopaths, for example...would that suggest that they lack the DNA? And would it justify our feeling that something was "wrong" with them, if they responded positively to it? But how could a non-pondered response be morally bad? They didn't even think ("ponder") about it, so their response or lack thereof was entirely outside of their decision. How then could we have just moral concerns about the fact that they lacked the reaction?

But how does DNA make us moral (or presumably, immoral)?

all men are moral due to being born via nature as a social animal - and since a social animal has to be moral!

Hmmm...I don't think so.

I've seen lions killing zebras. It's horrid (to me), but the lions are not behaving morally badly. Nor are they good if they let the zebras go. In fact, it doesn't seem that lions consider any moral dimensions at all. Their social arrangements appear purely instinctive.

And one more problem occurs to me: if DNA is "moral" but never "immoral," then in what sense is it "moral"? What I mean is that then there is no opposite of "moral" that makes the term possible. To illustrate: if everything in this world were green, we would have no word for "green." Lacking any distinction between green things, the term "green" would itself have no referent, no quality it could pick out for us from everything else.

So I don't think that, if we use the term "moral," we can avoid also using the term "immoral," or at least "amoral."

otherwise nature would have made us extinct millinia ago.

Well it seems to me that that's logically a problem.

If morality is an evolutionary advantage (which I think is a very difficult claim to sustain), then evolution could not have selected for it. Darwin said that natural selection was blind to any adaptation that was not already producing a survival value. So then, how can such a thing "evolve" by stages, when it's not useful for survival until fully formed?

look forward to talking with you here or on other threads in the future.

Yes, and I you.

[gaffo]

you have the Tripartite. a mind, willing to use in in honest debate, and are a thinker IMO - i have not "Talked to you" since we've been here too much ( note your moniker but not replied to much of your threads - AFAIK, my mem is poor - so if i had, my bad). for whatever reasons, maybe different threads/interests/etc, so did not your nature before lately.

knowing it now, i welcome discussion with you. I regret we have not crossed pathes prior in other threads.

we all have the same sub-basement of morality.

I think I almost get your point: a "sub-basement" is a metaphor, obviously, so it's a bit tough for me to get an exact picture of it.

ok, this is just my view of man from a universal humanist perspective. i hate rasicts, and view them as tribal, rejecting that others in the other tribe are the same as them!

they are "broken" (Weeny-dog for example) - they have personal demons (i.e. i hate myself for being a "failure" - so instead of looking within and helping/forgiving/loving myself and become a better man - i will play Hitler and play bully, remain non self actualized and blame all my problems on the other tribe (i.e. i will be the coward))

And if someone did not have that response...as there are people who do not -- psychopaths, for example...would that suggest that they lack the DNA? And would it justify our feeling that something was "wrong" with them, if they responded positively to it? But how could a non-pondered response be morally bad? They didn't even think ("ponder") about it, so their response or lack thereof was entirely outside of their decision. How then could we have just moral concerns about the fact that they lacked the reaction?

that is an excellent point!

do Psychopaths throw up when being subjected without forewarning - to dissmembered and rotting corpses? (you claim they do not - can you site your claim?)

there is no "study" on this AFAIK- really how could there be?

i think they would

I think the biological response is prior to thought

But how does DNA make us moral (or presumably, immoral)?

all men are moral due to being born via nature as a social animal - and since a social animal has to be moral!

Hmmm...I don't think so.

I've seen lions killing zebras. It's horrid (to me), but the lions are not behaving morally badly. [/quote]

Male Alpha lion will - 1/4, 1/2, 3/4???????????? (i'd like to know the percentages personally for general knowledge) will kill the offspring of his female consort (after her prior male mate died).

why? some sort of maximising of DNA diversity i assume. raising ones "step-kids" may be a dissadvange to survival of lions.

I don't see how - lions being being lions, but DNA rules in survival so if some male lions kill the kid of his famale of a former male lion, it must serves survival - otherwise it would not happen.

Their social arrangements appear purely instinctive.

WOW!!!!!!!!
maybe you are i have been talking on different lightyear planes!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IMO morality IS an INSTINCT!!!!!!!!!

hence my "all throw up when seeing/smelling a drawn and quartered person

And one more problem occurs to me: if DNA is "moral" but never "immoral," then in what sense is it "moral"? What I mean is that then there is no opposite of "moral" that makes the term possible.

IMO symantics.

i understand you point BTW.

To illustrate: if everything in this world were green, we would have no word for "green." Lacking any distinction between green things, the term "green" would itself have no referent, no quality it could pick out for us from everything else.

that is a colorblind argument.

I see 100 or so genes that are "moral" - none are born with none, but some with less than 10, they will be born pyschopaths - and if given a good upbringing will be fine and moral - but not if not given.

others with the full lottery of morality - can be dragged through the mud, pure hell as kid, and still be a saint.

of course most - 98 percent of us are in the 30-percent middle (bell curve).

but there are outliers on both sides



we "Fix" your color blinded folks by jailing/killing (after flawed trials and jury rullings (where juries are allowed) - and kill them for being "immoral".



So I don't think that, if we use the term "moral," we can avoid also using the term "immoral," or at least "amoral."

otherwise nature would have made us extinct millinia ago.

Well it seems to me that that's logically a problem.

?? dont follow.

If morality is an evolutionary advantage (which I think is a very difficult claim to sustain),

[gaffo]

you have a mind, willing to use in in honest debate, and are a thinker IMO - i have not "Talked to you" since we've been here too much ( note your moniker but not replied to much of your threads - AFAIK, my mem is poor - so if i had, my bad). for whatever reasons, maybe different threads/interests/etc, so did not your nature before lately.

knowing it now, i welcome discussion with you. I regret we have not crossed pathes prior in other threads.

we all have the same sub-basement of morality.

I think I almost get your point: a "sub-basement" is a metaphor, obviously, so it's a bit tough for me to get an exact picture of it.

ok, this is just my view of man from a universal humanist perspective. i hate rasicts, and view them as tribal, rejecting that others in the other tribe are the same as them!

they are "broken" (Weeny-dog for example) - they have personal demons (i.e. i hate myself for being a "failure" - so instead of looking within and helping/forgiving/loving myself and become a better man - i will play Hitler and play bully, remain non self actualized and blame all my problems on the other tribe (i.e. i will be the coward))

And if someone did not have that response...as there are people who do not -- psychopaths, for example...would that suggest that they lack the DNA? And would it justify our feeling that something was "wrong" with them, if they responded positively to it? But how could a non-pondered response be morally bad? They didn't even think ("ponder") about it, so their response or lack thereof was entirely outside of their decision. How then could we have just moral concerns about the fact that they lacked the reaction?

that is an excellent point!

do Psychopaths throw up when being subjected without forewarning - to dissmembered and rotting corpses? (you claim they do not - can you site your claim?)

there is no "study" on this AFAIK- really how could there be?

i think they would

I think the biological response is prior to thought

But how does DNA make us moral (or presumably, immoral)?

all men are moral due to being born via nature as a social animal - and since a social animal has to be moral!

Hmmm...I don't think so.

I've seen lions killing zebras. It's horrid (to me), but the lions are not behaving morally badly.

Male Alpha lion will - 1/4, 1/2, 3/4???????????? (i'd like to know the percentages personally for general knowledge) will kill the offspring of his female consort (after her prior male mate died).

why? some sort of maximising of DNA diversity i assume. raising ones "step-kids" may be a dissadvange to survival of lions.

I don't see how - lions being being lions, but DNA rules in survival so if some male lions kill the kid of his famale of a former male lion, it must serves survival - otherwise it would not happen.

Their social arrangements appear purely instinctive.

WOW!!!!!!!!
maybe you and i have been talking on different lightyear planes!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IMO morality IS an INSTINCT!!!!!!!!!

hence my "all throw up when seeing/smelling a drawn and quartered person

And one more problem occurs to me: if DNA is "moral" but never "immoral," then in what sense is it "moral"? What I mean is that then there is no opposite of "moral" that makes the term possible.

IMO symantics.

i understand you point BTW.

To illustrate: if everything in this world were green, we would have no word for "green." Lacking any distinction between green things, the term "green" would itself have no referent, no quality it could pick out for us from everything else.

that is a colorblind argument.

I see 100 or so genes that are "moral" - none are born with none, but some with less than 10, they will be born pyschopaths - and if given a good upbringing will be fine and moral - but not if not given.

others with the full lottery of morality - can be dragged through the mud, pure hell as kid, and still be a saint.

of course most - 98 percent of us are in the 30-percent middle (bell curve).

but there are outliers on both sides



we "Fix" your color blinded folks by jailing/killing (after flawed trials and jury rullings (where juries are allowed) - and kill them for being "immoral".



So I don't think that, if we use the term "moral," we can avoid also using the term "immoral," or at least "amoral."

otherwise nature would have made us extinct millinia ago.

Well it seems to me that that's logically a problem.

?? dont follow.

[Immanuel Can]

ok, this is just my view of man from a universal humanist perspective. i hate rasicts, and view them as tribal, rejecting that others in the other tribe are the same as them! they are "broken" (Weeny-dog for example) - they have personal demons (i.e. i hate myself for being a "failure" - so instead of looking within and helping/forgiving/loving myself and become a better man - i will play Hitler and play bully, remain non self actualized and blame all my problems on the other tribe (i.e. i will be the coward))

Okay. I would agree that racists are a bad thing. I would hope that most of us do.

And if someone did not have that response...as there are people who do not -- psychopaths, for example...would that suggest that they lack the DNA? And would it justify our feeling that something was "wrong" with them, if they responded positively to it? But how could a non-pondered response be morally bad? They didn't even think ("ponder") about it, so their response or lack thereof was entirely outside of their decision. How then could we have just moral concerns about the fact that they lacked the reaction?

that is an excellent point!

do Psychopaths throw up when being subjected without forewarning - to dissmembered and rotting corpses? (you claim they do not - can you site your claim?)

It's generally part of the definition of being a "psychopath" that the person had extremely diminished (or missing) empathy for victims, and particularly for his/her own victims. In fact, psychopaths may like, and even seek out, opportunities to view things that would revolt others. Here's an entry-level citation https://www.scienceofpeople.com/psychopath/

all men are moral due to being born via nature as a social animal - and since a social animal has to be moral!

Well, psychopaths, as you can see, are indifferent to morality. Their social interactions are narcissistic, but you'll also note that the citation flags them as socially "charming," at least superficially. So they seem both social and amoral.

I've seen lions killing zebras. It's horrid (to me), but the lions are not behaving morally badly.

Male Alpha lion will - 1/4, 1/2, 3/4???????????? (i'd like to know the percentages personally for general knowledge) will kill the offspring of his female consort (after her prior male mate died).

In general, the dominant male lions in a pride are highly dangerous to cubs -- other lions', and also their own. They kill them so the females will go into estrus, and the lionesses have quite a time keeping the males from doing this. Fortunately for them, there are more females in the pride than males, so it's possible.

Their social arrangements appear purely instinctive.

WOW!!!!!!!!
maybe you are i have been talking on different lightyear planes!!!!!!!!!!!!!


IMO morality IS an INSTINCT!!!!!!!!!

If it is, it's morality of a very strange and unreliable kind. Usually, human beings violate their own moral prohibitions quite frequently. Ordinarily, instinct in animals is universal.

To illustrate: if everything in this world were green, we would have no word for "green." Lacking any distinction between green things, the term "green" would itself have no referent, no quality it could pick out for us from everything else.

that is a colorblind argument.

Exactly. And we would be "moralblind" if everything we did were "moral." In fact, we would not even have the concept "moral," since it would not refer to a distinction at all.

otherwise nature would have made us extinct millinia ago.

Well it seems to me that that's logically a problem.

?? dont follow.

"Morality" is not a thing that can form by gradual, evolving steps, because any moral prohibition is not useful for survival until it's complete, believed, and practiced. So "natural selection" cannot be the reason such a moral prohibition exists. There must be a better reason.

That's the idea, in very simple form.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no logical connection between a volitional act and any outcome.

We were talking about this claim's implications for A.!., earlier. And though it's been a bit since we talked on that, I found this interesting excerpt from Anthony Flew's last book. It contains an imaginary story or parable that has important implications for the view you have sometimes expressed that neutrons and such materials could be the comprehensive explanation for consciousness. And I thought you might like to contemplate it.

Here it is, in brief:

"Let us begin with a parable.

Imagine that a satellite phone is washed
ashore on a remote island inhabited by a tribe that has never had
contact with modern civilization. The natives play with the numbers on
the dial pad and hear different voices upon hitting certain sequences.
They assume first that it’s the device that makes these noises. Some
of the cleverer natives, the scientists of the tribe, assemble an
exact replica and hit the numbers again. They hear the voices again.
The conclusion seems obvious to them. This particular combination of
crystals and metals and chemicals produces what seems like human
voices, and this means that the voices are simply properties of this
device.

But the tribal sage summons the scientists for a discussion. He has
thought long and hard on the matter and has reached the following
conclusion: the voices coming through the instrument must be coming
from people like themselves, people who are living and conscious
although speaking in another language. Instead of assuming that the
voices are simply properties of the handset, they should investigate
the possibility that through some mysterious communication network
they are ‘in touch’ with other humans. Perhaps further study along
these lines could lead to a greater understanding of the world beyond
their island. But the scientists simply laugh at the sage and say,
‘Look, when we damage the instrument, the voices stop coming. So
they’re obviously nothing more than sounds produced by a unique
combination of lithium and printed circuit boards and light-emitting
diodes.

In this parable we see how easy it is to let preconceived theories
shape the way we view evidence instead of letting the evidence shape
our theories….

So Flew says we have to be careful not to presume that the "diodes, lithium and printed circuit boards" are the total reasons for the existence of a voice on a cell phone. Just so, I would suggest, we have to be careful not to assume without proof that neurons and electro-chemical reactions, or "brain," if you will, are the sufficient explanation for consciousness. For it may be true that damaging the "hardware" distorts or interrupts the communication of consciousness; but it does not therefore follow that consciousness is nothing but the "hardware." The "hardware" is indisputably a medium through which consciousness flows...but a medium is neither a message nor is it the intelligence or person from which the message originated.

Interesting, no?

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

So Flew says we have to be careful not to presume that the "diodes, lithium and printed circuit boards" are the total reasons for the existence of a voice on a cell phone. Just so, I would suggest, we have to be careful not to assume without proof that neurons and electro-chemical reactions, or "brain," if you will, are the sufficient explanation for consciousness. For it may be true that damaging the "hardware" distorts or interrupts the communication of consciousness; but it does not therefore follow that consciousness is nothing but the "hardware." The "hardware" is indisputably a medium through which consciousness flows...but a medium is neither a message nor is it the intelligence or person from which the message originated.

I agree .We have to be careful not to jump to conclusions. It's not true "consciousness is nothing but the hardware". It's true that electrochemical transmitters or brain are insufficient explanation for consciousness. Consciousness is more than the "hardware"; consciousness is mind and extended matter.
God's manifested world is physical, temporal, and relative as God made it. It's also mental and spiritual as God made it. There is no contest as matter and mind are two aspects of the same unity.

You persist in splitting mind and matter. This is because your preferred religious authority has appropriated mind and spirit and set them on some sort of higher level than God's sweet physical world, so that he can control your behaviour. Be afraid!

[Sculptor]

So "natural selection" cannot be the reason such a moral prohibition exists. There must be a better reason.

That's the idea, in very simple form.

Bad ideas fade away. That is how religion is going. It's not relevant, and like any bad meme, fails to get reproduced.
Cultural selection?

[Immanuel Can]

Bad ideas fade away. That is how religion is going. It's not relevant, and like any bad meme, fails to get reproduced.
Cultural selection?

Now, that's interesting...and problematic, as well.

For one evolutionary explanation for the existence of religion is that it exists. They say it's not prized for any reference to reality, but because it has had "survival value." That's why it's been reproduced so universally.

Half of the materialists seem to maintaining that's true.

But the other half seems to think religion is simply a "bad idea," or "bad meme," and thus, having less survival value than alternatives like Atheism and materialism, should never really have been reproduced in the first place.

So "cultural selection" is both the reason that religion exists as a phenomenon, and also the best reason to eliminate it?

I'm not sure which story they wish to go with.

[gaffo]

I read your reply to me, and smipped - agreed with maybe 1/4 of it overall.

wanted to retain the your central theme below as your summation, and of course my views ya/nay per said views.

"Morality" is not a thing that can form by gradual, evolving steps,...................

why not?

because any moral prohibition is not useful for survival until it's complete, believed, and practiced.

natural selection is NEVER COMPLETE - so that means man nor morality is "complete".

COMPETE! is what NS is about!

if you don't compete you DIE,


if you do compete you win - right now - but are never Complete! - the others (other species) any take you out anytime!

there is no such thing as "complete" in Natualselection - or the morality that is a product of for social animals - including man.

So "natural selection" cannot be the reason such a moral prohibition exists. There must be a better reason.

why not and why respectively?

That's the idea, in very simple form.

ok. i dont agree with your idea, but its clear and so thank you.

[Immanuel Can]

I read your reply to me, and smipped - agreed with maybe 1/4 of it overall.

wanted to retain the your central theme below as your summation, and of course my views ya/nay per said views.

"Morality" is not a thing that can form by gradual, evolving steps,...................

why not?

because any moral prohibition is not useful for survival until it's complete, believed, and practiced.

natural selection is NEVER COMPLETE - so that means man nor morality is "complete".

No, you're not getting my point quite right. Or rather, you're not grasping Mr. Darwin's concern about this.

Darwin argued that natural selection only works for adaptations that bring a survival advantage. But a moral faculty that is not developed yet does not bring any survival advantages in all the stages in which it is too underdeveloped to issue in a compelling moral conclusion. Darwin believed that the evolutionary process itself was utterly "blind" (his word) to such mutations, and thus could not possibly select for them.

So they would never be even partially complete. Natural selection would be blind to morality.

And Darwin believed, furthermore, that it WAS blind to morality. He goes on at quite some length about how he regards the viciousness of the evolutionary process -- of natural selection, predation, disease, and extinction -- as his most important reason for thinking there was no God. He said that such an amoral process could not possibly be the product of a caring Creator...or so he thought.

So your disagreement is not so much with me as it is with Charles Darwin.

A further interesting thought. Darwin realized that evolutionism undermined science. He realized that if the faculty of reason that made science possible was a product not of truth but of survival, there was no reason to think it was reliable.

To illustrate: a frog that believes the fly in front of its face is food, and eats it, is likely to survive over one that does not. But equally likely to survive would be a frog that thinks that if he eats a fly he will turn into a prince. The latter may be silly, but it's every bit as useful from a survival perspective.

So viewed this way, why should we, in an evolutionary universe, ever trust the pronouncements of our own brains? They may be geared to falsehoods, not truths, for all we know. As he put it himself,

“The horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust the conviction of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

Good question, Chuck. And it kills all confidence we might have in science.

So that's a further problem.

[henry quirk]

If morality is immutable fact, then it must be immutable fact from the start.

Consider: I make a big to-do about first principles (a man owns himself & has a right to his life, liberty, & property). If these are truly immutable facts then they have been immutable and factual from the start. There was no evolution, no gradual progresion from 'opinion' to 'fact'.

[Justintruth]

There is no logical connection between a volitional act and any outcome.

We were talking about this claim's implications for A.!., earlier. And though it's been a bit since we talked on that, I found this interesting excerpt from Anthony Flew's last book. It contains an imaginary story or parable that has important implications for the view you have sometimes expressed that neutrons and such materials could be the comprehensive explanation for consciousness. And I thought you might like to contemplate it.

Here it is, in brief:

"Let us begin with a parable.

Imagine that a satellite phone is washed
ashore on a remote island inhabited by a tribe that has never had
contact with modern civilization. The natives play with the numbers on
the dial pad and hear different voices upon hitting certain sequences.
They assume first that it’s the device that makes these noises. Some
of the cleverer natives, the scientists of the tribe, assemble an
exact replica and hit the numbers again. They hear the voices again.
The conclusion seems obvious to them. This particular combination of
crystals and metals and chemicals produces what seems like human
voices, and this means that the voices are simply properties of this
device.

But the tribal sage summons the scientists for a discussion. He has
thought long and hard on the matter and has reached the following
conclusion: the voices coming through the instrument must be coming
from people like themselves, people who are living and conscious
although speaking in another language. Instead of assuming that the
voices are simply properties of the handset, they should investigate
the possibility that through some mysterious communication network
they are ‘in touch’ with other humans. Perhaps further study along
these lines could lead to a greater understanding of the world beyond
their island. But the scientists simply laugh at the sage and say,
‘Look, when we damage the instrument, the voices stop coming. So
they’re obviously nothing more than sounds produced by a unique
combination of lithium and printed circuit boards and light-emitting
diodes.

In this parable we see how easy it is to let preconceived theories
shape the way we view evidence instead of letting the evidence shape
our theories….

So Flew says we have to be careful not to presume that the "diodes, lithium and printed circuit boards" are the total reasons for the existence of a voice on a cell phone. Just so, I would suggest, we have to be careful not to assume without proof that neurons and electro-chemical reactions, or "brain," if you will, are the sufficient explanation for consciousness. For it may be true that damaging the "hardware" distorts or interrupts the communication of consciousness; but it does not therefore follow that consciousness is nothing but the "hardware." The "hardware" is indisputably a medium through which consciousness flows...but a medium is neither a message nor is it the intelligence or person from which the message originated.

Interesting, no?

Is the mass of an electron the sufficient explanation for its electric charge?

No.

But, because we find that electrons are always charged and we can't find charge separate from a particle, we can posit that charge is an additional property of some particles and also posit that an electron is one of those charged particles.

Then, if I say that there is an electron somewhere for some reason then that is a sufficient explanation for the charge being there given the posit I just mentioned.

Does this mean that charge is merely the mass of the electron?

No. But the presence of the electron, along with the posit that electrons are charged, is sufficient to establish the presence of charge.

Is the biochemistry of a functioning brain a sufficient explanation for its experiencing?

No.

But, because we find that functioning brains are experiencing and we don't find experiencing without functioning brains, we can posit that experiencing is an additional property of a functioning brain.

Then, if I say that there is a functioning brain somewhere for some reason then that is a sufficient explanation for experiencing being there given the posit I just mentioned.

Contingent being cannot be derived like a proof without the right assumptions. Once those assumptions are in place, an anesthesiologist for example, could predict a loss of consciousness cased solely by effecting a chemical change in a brain.

Isn't that interesting!

The original question is whether there is some objective to positing that brains experience.

Perhaps more fruitful would be to examine whether you think there is some connection of the idea that brains could be conscious with something to do with religion. Do you have a religious implication you are trying to avoid? You need also to look at what you mean by "sufficient explanation" also. No contingent being has a "sufficient explanation" without some existential posits.