RE: Is God a logical contradiction?
February 14, 2020 at 6:24 pm
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2020 at 6:28 pm by John 6IX Breezy.)
(February 14, 2020 at 4:04 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: It isn't important to warn me about MRI studies, since you don't think it's possible for ANY scientific evidence to support a conclusion of consciousness and I do. I am consistent in following scientific inference in general, whether I like the results or consequences or not, you are making a special exception.
I think you should clarify what you mean by "justified" and "scientific inference," etc. There's been a shift in language as the conversation has progressed; and given that many people have responded to me I've lost track of whose saying what. What follows are the highlights from other users:
Abaddon_ire: "Actually, they do [have a conscience] and we can prove it."
Me: "They might, but you can't prove it."
Editz: "If you think non-human animals don't have consciousness...all I can say is "WOOF!"
Me: "They might, but it's unknowable with our current tools and methods."
Peebo-Thuhlu: "We do know that other animals share similar/the same mental states as many and varied tests have been trialed on a myriad of different animal species to ascertain their responses and level of cognizants."
Me: "You can observe the neural correlates of consciousness and the behavioral correlates of consciousness, but not consciousness itself and/or its accompanying mental states, thoughts, etc."
Gae: "Humans are conscious. Many other animals are also conscious, some, even have a conscience. Why is this a problem?"
Me: "...you don't know what you're talking about if you think you know other animals are conscious or have a conscience."
Notice that everyone seems to be speaking rather definitively that they know animals have consciousness and that there's evidence for it (Peebo was less definitive); I've mainly argued against this position. In contrast, your stance has been different from the rest. Our disagreement began with the following exchange:
Me: "Unless you know a behavior can only occur in the presence of conscience, you cannot conclude conscience by observing the behavior."
You: "Of course it can be concluded. 100% certainty isn't required to make a justified inference."
Explain what you mean; or at t he very least what your thought process is when reaching a conclusion.
