alldaysoup

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.

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.

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!