Its not for me. In my view, the mind is a gateway from the spiritual to the physical, and it stems from the brain. Damage the gateway, and the spirit doesn't come through the same way. Brain damage affecting behavior doesn't negate the spirit, for me.
Doesn't falsify the unfalsifiable notion of a disembodied spirit having some unspecified effect on behaviour, of course.
It doesn't falsify the notion of the CIA controlling our behaviour through invisible thought-rays, either.
Have you really thought about what role the spirit has in all this? It isn't making the final moral decisions since apparently (research that the OP puts forward) the brain seems to have veto powers, even when it has sustained damage.
In what way would the behaviour of this robot differ from the behaviour of a human?
The Zombie argument. This is often refuted by suggesting that if you created a robot that did everything a human did, in the same ways, then it would be conscious.
That is to say, if you create something that is exactly equivalent to a conscious human, you have something that is exactly equivalent to a conscious human. Including the conscious part. Another angle would be to suggest that if such a robot/zombie was not conscious, then neither are we.
what is the adaptive basis for consciousness?
We don't know. In fact we don't even know there has to be an adaptive basis for it. Indeed, it might be a spandrel.
Philosophy usually divides morality into two types: 'descriptive' which is the sorts of rules derived by human authority groups (religions, clubs, states) - such as "don't eat meat on friday" "replace your divots" and "don't drive when drunk" and 'normative' which is the universal code of moral actions that humans possess such as those I described earlier (and several objected to). They're mostly of the 'do no harm' sort that google is so fond of - things like, don't murder rape thieve etc.
I don't think that's quite right. Descriptive describes what people think is right and wrong (often used to compare different people or groups). Normative is about they way people should behave. Applied is about how to put the normative ideas into practical use. Meta is about understanding what 'right' and 'wrong' actually mean.
Descriptive morality, or ethics, would be saying that Catholics view many contraceptives as morally wrong. Normative would be saying we should not use contraceptives, Applied would be to have sex without the use of contraceptives, Meta would be saying that right behaviour is behaviour that is in agreement with God's will.
Is it right enough to get by, or do we have to run down the rabbit hole again?
Just worth keeping in mind if you want to advance the discussion. Your descriptions of normative and descriptive are in error, which may cause problems if you want to discuss the matter in depth.
However, your point that
sociopaths know the (descriptive) rules but it doesn't inhibit their actions because the (normative) impulse not to do harm that is present in 'normal' people is missing.
More or less still works out as a fair position to take. Sociopaths may know that x believes y to be wrong (descriptive) whereas they themselves may not feel compelled to feel that it is wrong themselves (lacking the normative).
I think they got this from an unknown source that actually reads:
quote:In its first descriptive usage, morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. In its second normative and universal sense, morality refers to an ideal code of conduct, one which would be espoused in preference to alternatives by all rational people, under specified conditions
Which I do agree with. This is slightly different wording, but it changes the meaning considerably, I feel. (I find the above quote all over the net, but I can't find its origins).