Skip Navigation

If you could ask one question and get a 100% true answer, what would it be and why?

257

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context
257 comments
  • Instead of dismissing philosophers as idiots (which might be arguable!) why don't you actually address the arguments raised? Explore it logically as a scientist.

    Do you not see the point they're making?

    "Electrical impulses" isn't an explanation of consciousness any more than gas (petrol) is the cause of locomotion of vehicles.

    It's involved, sure, but is it a complete explanation, a good explanation, or even necessary for locomotion to happen?

    If you look in a brain and see electrical impulses are required for consciousness, is it any different to looking inside an engine and seeing that gas is necessary for it to move? Take them away and they both stop.

    You can put petrol in a canister but the canister doesn't move. Even if you set fire to it. You can put electrical impulses in a computer, but the computer isn't conscious, even if you make it "think" with AI.

    Or is it? How do you know? Does "electrical impulses" get you any closer to knowing?

    Think a bit more deeply about what you are actually arguing. But watch out: you're in danger of becoming a philosopher!

    • Instead of dismissing philosophers as idiots (which might be arguable!) why don’t you actually address the arguments raised?

      Because philosophers love semantic traps, and the best counter to them is either a long, detailed explanation (for someone asking in good faith) or ridicule (for someone who would patiently read your long, detailed explanation and then just come up with another semantic trap that they demand you explain away).

      “Electrical impulses” isn’t an explanation of consciousness any more than gas (petrol) is the cause of locomotion of vehicles.

      For example. Gasoline is literally the cause of locomotion in vehicles. You put gas in, car go. It gets more complicated than that. Everything always gets more complicated, down to the quantum level. It is fallacious* to demand a specific level of complexity and declare that as "an explanation". There is no such thing. It is all relative.

      "Consciousness is electrical impulses in the brain" is a true statement. It's just not detailed enough for these guys. But instead of saying "I want more detail", they say "you are wrong", because that's the true point of modern philosophy. Being able to say, "hah, I am so much deeper and more intellectual than you". Not finding solutions to problems. Science finds solutions to problems.

      Anyway, to get back to semantic traps, in this case they decided that an arbitrary level of complexity is "correct" and everything else is "wrong" but they never stated or even defended that premise. And when confronted with it, they deflect. This is why philosophers are deserving of scorn: they play with the multiple interpretations of words to try to make their opponent look wrong or stupid. Note for example the first clumsy attempt, saying "if consciousness is electrical impulses, then electrical impulses are consciousness, so why isn't a computer conscious?" Obviously middle school level reasoning, but they gloss over the second part ("then electrical impulses are consciousness") so quickly and with such authority that if you're not paying attention you don't notice. But it's patently ridiculous, and their whole premise rests on it. "Muslims are all people, therefore all people are Muslims". Ridiculous. Not even worthy of going down that rabbit hole, because they'll just pull another ridiculous thing out of their sleeve and dress it up in flowery language. It's not worth the effort, just call them ignoramuses and let them know you can see through their bullshit.

      *another semantic trap I see incoming: "aha! You used the word 'fallacious' but this doesn't correspond to any of the explicitly listed 26 known fallacies! Haha so dumb." Philosphers love defining things and then using their definitions against you, as if they were authoritative and not their own personal (sometimes wildly incorrect) definition

You've viewed 257 comments.