• alldaysoup
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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!

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

      • alldaysoup
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Look I understand you don’t like philosophy and philosophers, and you’ve been riled up by the other commenter.

        I’m not trying to trap you with some philosophers bag of tricks. I just would like to explain what you are missing… and forget “philosophy”… let’s just look with cool and calm and scientific logic.

        But it seems like atm you are reacting with anger and stubbornness, digging in your heels in and it is blinding you to some basic principles of science and an intriguing mystery.

        Gasoline is literally the cause of locomotion in vehicles.

        You said this is a true statement. You seem totally convinced and unwilling to accept any possible challenge to this. But please come back to this when you’re calmer and with and open mind and re-evaluate it.

        Ask yourself: is it always true? Is it true if I don’t press the gas pedal? Is it true for electric vehicles? Do cars keep moving non-stop until they run out of gas? If gas is the cause – why not? If I put gas in an electric car will it go? If I put wheels on a gas canister and put gas in it, will it move?

        This is just plain simple logical analysis. No traps. Just evaluate if the statement you said is true is really true.

        Just because some vehicles won’t work without gas doesn’t mean gas is the cause of locomotion. Nor is it a very good explanation of what locomotion is. Locomotion can happen without it. Gas is not required at all for locomotion in general. It can be involved, sure. It can be needed for certain kinds of locomotion, sure. But is it the cause? Does it do anything to significantly explain how a car moves? Or would that require something else?

        If you had never seen a plane before and you asked me “how does it fly?” would you be satisfied with my explanation of “aviation fuel causes it to fly”?

        I’m happy to have a calm discussion about this when you’ve cooled down and explain calmly and logically why. It’s a super interesting line of thought. No philosophers semantic traps, I promise.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ask yourself

          I mean, as I said, it always gets more complicated. Almost every question you could ever ask can be accurately answered with “it depends”. That’s just the nature of reality.

          The core of my disagreement in this conversation/flyting is when they should have said “I desire more detail”, they instead said “you are wrong”. It gets a tiny bit epistemological, but “electrical impulses in the brain” is broad enough and succinct enough that we can say it is true, for the level of detail the commenter was giving. It is generally understandable for those who wish to understand it. In a certain sense, if you zoom in enough very little is really true/correct since you can find exceptions and additional details etc etc. The earth is round…kind of. The sky is blue…kind of. You can tailor the level of complexity of your statements to match your audience. Almost every “true” statement can have an asterisk next to it. Almost nothing is always true.

          In this case (dealing with the nature of consciousness) past a certain level of detail, we don’t know how it works. But when you zoom out enough, we do. I could zoom out even further and say “consciousness is awareness of internal and external existence”. Or “consciousness is a thing”. Or “consciousness is”. All of these being correct statements, though useless to the conversation.

          So all your additional questions boil down to a request for more detail, some of which we know and some of which we don’t (the “hard problem”). If the conversation had gone in that direction, that’s fine. But it didn’t. It went in the “you’re wrong and stupid, look how smart I am for pointing it out” direction.

          If you had never seen a plane before and you asked me “how does it fly?” would you be satisfied with my explanation of “aviation fuel causes it to fly”?

          Maybe, maybe not. Most people are in fact satisfied with that, or maybe “burning fuel pushes it and wings catch the air and lift it”. Some people go deeper into an explanation of lift. Some go even farther.

          The point is it’s foolish to say that “aviation fuel makes it fly” is wrong. It’s not wrong, it’s just at an insufficient level of detail for you.

          • alldaysoup
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Never mind, you don’t seem to be in a mood for considering other possibilities or the dispassionate application of logic. You have already decided that you’re 100% correct.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Dammit, I actually took the time to give a real response for that one and you didn’t even read it. I’m actually very disappointed. I thought you were legitimately asking.