[Diamond]

Here you're falling into the fallacy of composition trap. We're made up of lifeless components, but that's irrelevant because it's the complex entity as a whole (the "person" in this case) that's alive. Likewise, the quality of "wetness" doesn't apply to oxygen or hydrogen, yet water has lots of wetness. Where did the wetness come from when water molecules were formed from their un-wet components? Again, no conundrum to worry about.

While you have given a very good illustration of the composition fallacy, I think I am not committing it here. There are, as you know, various kinds of proffered causal explanations of the very complicated matter of mind and consciousness, i.e., why water is wet. The materialist seeks a causal explanation in the reduction of consciousness to a material property of the brain, an emergent phenomena that appears only at very high levels of complexity. It is presumed to be irreducible to lower levels even though those 'lover levels' alone do cause it. (unlike a liquid which is emergent but which is ontologically reducible in terms of the relationship between more basic elements.) The experience of things like the wetness of water is causally dependent only by the brain with the brain being basically in a new state of matter.

Even if this view were correct in explaining consciousness it is of no help at all with the problem of morality. It is not just an epistemological problem of calculation of the possibility of billions of firing neurons and what causes consciousness. Even if you could hypothetically explain all consciousness in terms of matter, you still are still saying that matter ends up producing real morality; actual, not illusory, right and wrong. Is matter or any of its emergent properties dualistic? Conversely, is morality just a property of human consciousness? If it is then it is entirely subjective, and not worthy of the name. How is it that even a "new state of matter" (still governed by chance or necessity) produces authoritative moral commands worthy of praise when "obeyed" and blame when "disobeyed"?

Cordially,

[gobucks]

Although this question is off topic, sort of, after reading this post of yours, I have to ask: are you a golfer?

Golf is about swinging the 'right' way. The room for error is so small ... and the impact of hanging around and watching people who don't know how to swing correctly is so significant, it is no wonder so many clubs are gathering dust in garages or green fuzz on the bottom of a pond.

So many fail to pick up their clubs, once the evidence is present that the work ahead of them is so steep. Diamond, what I mean to say is that I would LOVE the ability to off the top of my head write:

Even if you could hypothetically explain all consciousness in terms of matter, you still are still saying that matter ends up producing real morality; actual, not illusory, right and wrong. Is matter or any of its emergent properties dualistic? Conversely, is morality just a property of human consciousness? If it is then it is entirely subjective, and not worthy of the name.

Asking the question, how does matter end up 'producing real morality'.... that is the kind of golf swing I frankly want to imitate. So, I'm guessing you are likely a golfer ... perhaps with a handicap in the single digits. The principles are so similar... Btw, I use the 20 Bill analogy ... is it green paper, or is it really 20 Dollars? I tell my Sunday School students that the hypocrit Christians are the best evidence BY FAR of the validity of Christ ... for who wants to counterfeit a fake? How many people are struggling to defeat the anti-counterfeiting measures taken by the Nigerian Gov't to protect their currency, the Naira? Thus, we have figured out without talking about it much, how to make the U.S. Dollar a 'standard', one that is worthy of massive counterfeiting efforts. But we don't talk very much about the good news a counterfeit 20 dollar bill actually tells us.

So, that all said, I'm still interested: are you a golfer?