@

Again, you have some deeper objection to whether or not there are facts, or any way of knowing.  I don't.   I accept that those facts which inform us of the potential for non human cognizance are commensurate to any other type of fact by which we claim to know things.  Commensurate, in fact, to those facts which inform us of human consciousness.

I expect that cats and bats have content that I don't..the same is true for cats and bats and my own content.  I don't have a problem with that.  I expect the conscious content of other conscious agents to be different.  Particularly so when they're equipped with disparate sensory apparatus.  Hell, they're different just between you and I. Its additionally obvious that the apparatus of cognizance itself is more well developed in some species than others. None of this reduces anything to senselessness, that's an incredible claim. Wrong with respect to everything that we know, and right by reference to no fact whatsoever. The lord of creation spread this gift far and wide, if the lord of creation was involved.

I still have no idea why this would be a problem for you.  I keep asking, it obviously is, but you're not telling me why it would be.

So what if people weren't the sole possessors of conscious agency?

"Many other animals are also conscious, some, even have a conscience." -Gae

Again, my only problem is with claims such as the one you made above, when you don't possibly have access to such information.

That would be an epistemic disagreement, but it's unimportant to hash it out.

You are not being forthright. That you have an epistemic disagreement with me is clearly not the problem. Let's imagine a world in which there are no facts and no way for me to know that other animals are conscious, and that their conscious includes a conscience. Nevertheless, it's true. This is a world in which you have me dead to rights, and I'm accidentally right.

Is there some issue that this presents for your worldview?

My worldview?

Yes, John, your worldview. There's no factual issue with non human consciousness or conscience. I assume that you have an ideological objection.

What would that be?

I'm a graduate student studying cognitive science. My religion is scientific accuracy; don't sin against my religion with unsubstantiated claims about consciousness.

John, your religion isn't scientific accuracy...why are we even doing this? Are you willing to state your ideological objection, or not?

I can't state something I don't have. But I enjoy the attempt to hide your unsubstantiated claims about consciousness with such a transition.

Pointless. You either have no objection, or you simply don't wish to field it. If you have no ideological objection, then you have no objection at all.

Both of us know that this isn't true, and there's no one in this thread who you will, or need to convince otherwise. It's -okay- just spit it the fuck out. You've already flirted with it. You are aware that those same things we take to be indicative of consciousness and conscience in humans, are also present in animals. You -strongly- insist that these observations are insufficient, and not for no reason whatsoever. Whatever that reason is, is the only productive avenue of discussion open to us. What compels you to insist that there are no facts, and no way to know?

What does that even mean? It's not enough to call you out on your unsubstantiated claims, I need an entire religion or else I have no objection?