The human mind is a poetic representation of the brain; it is a quasi-mystical view of what contains and expresses everything that is human. Of course, it isn't difficult for us to envison ourselves being mythical in some way, and somehow apart from other animals by virtue of our very tendancy wonder if we are actually distinct. The distinction is often thought to be made quite obvious by the ability of the human brain to contemplate it at all. No other animals observably do this, with the noteworthy possibility of our most closely related primate cousins. We find ourselves special then, and wonder what separates us from the beasts. The loudest answer is always that human beings are in some way unique; closest to the heart of whatever deity is imagined to have created us. But no matter the strength of our desire to see ourselves as luminious beings transfixed temporarily to mere matter, it must be admitted that everything we are is entirely dependent on the condition and nature of our physical bodies. It may be that the idea of a soul cannot be entirely eliminated, but it does not exist in any meaningful way, except as a consolation for those who choose to believe in it. Of course those who believe in the soul are not likely to give up their faith for the sake of a few paltry words offered here, so I would ask only that it is assumed for the sake of this argument, that the soul does not exist. Only then can the consequences of physicality be discussed with sincerity.
Taking for granted then that the brain, being a physical entity subject to physical laws, the question of long-defunct objective morality becomes relevant once more. It is conceivable that the brain, and therefore the person, could be understood to the point at which the motivations underlying our behaviors at last become readily apparent. In the case of such Laplacian observation, it could be possible to comprehend the mind so perfectly as to correlate its contents and understand fully not only what it means to be human, but also what informs all human action. In short; it might be possible for an objective morality to be established based upon knowledge of the human brain, in all its complexity and hereto unavoidable ambiguity. How this is to be done and whether or not it is ultimately within our power isn't clear though. Morality remains a choice, and so it seems impossible to establish a truly universal standard for it, even if every mind (brain) in existence were to be perfectly analyzed. Consider: three men are known to have differing views of morality. The first exalts his ego above all, the second expresses an unyielding faith in a deity, and the third holds fast to the ideals of humanism. Clearly the systems of morality sharply contrast with the others. Now, even if were demonstrable that one of the systems is the best in terms of utility, the others could still disagree and commit themselves to the idea that their own system is the most moral. Such a decision is impossible to refute, because human beings do not want to be told what is best for them.
How then, would the quantification of consciousness affect the conundrum? The mechanics of the brain could, through careful examination and study, allow one to pierce through any deception on the part of any of the three, and reveal their real reasons for choosing the moral systems they support. Awareness of what causes a person to subscribe to a certain mode of ethics would allow for what is undeniably a very uncomfortable situation. If the underlying genetic and environmental causes for moral decisions were to be known, then it would be very possible to influence the minds of others, especially children, to simulate certain conditions which would lead to a certain view of morality. This would give parents or other figures of authority an awful and abominable level of control over the minds of those who depend on them. This can already be seen in the indoctrination of unfortunate children of fundamentalists, who are never afforded the chance to choose their religion or ethical beliefs for themselves. They are thus far controlled by the most tried and true method: fear. However, knowing the level of control and indoctrination that is already possible, it is sobering to consider the unthinkable outcomes of knowing the brain and its method of decision, down to the most redundant neuron.
The human brain, being physical in nature, is inescapably limited to certain paths of thought. With the current strides of science, it is inevitable that the brain will be fully understood eventually; it is only a matter of time. This knowledge will almost certainly provide countless benefits to millions of people around the globe. Every movement forward in science brings new benefits and new dangers. Unlocking the power of the sun is arguably the greatest scientific feat thus far, but if I may speak from an anthropic position, unlocking the secrets of the psyche is likely to be far more enlightening. The discovery will subsequently carry great risk, as all great discoveries do. The dangers made possible by enlightenment must not deter us from the path of improvement, but it is always important to be wary and vigilant against the potential misuse of mankind's greatest triumphs.