Is God a logical contradiction?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You can split a brain in half and watch as the right hemisphere does an assortment of tasks which never enters the conscious awareness of the person in the left hemisphere. Is the right hemisphere also conscious because it can do things? There's no way to know.

WTF

[John 6IX Breezy]

You have some broader objection to the theories and study of mind, in mind, John.  If we really took it down to the basement, you're likely to object to the notion that science can properly study mind at all.  

I don't find that objection compelling.  Our best evidence indicates that consciousness and it's products (like conscience) are a widely leveraged tool in the animal kingdom.  Different in degree, clearly...but not in kind.  It may even have effective analogs in the plant kingdom.  More than one way to skin a cat, and all that.  What is the problem here?  What part of your worldview would accepting this endanger?

So what if consciousness and it's products weren't the sole possession of human beings?  You think it's a problem for me because I'm a big dummy...fine, but why is it a problem for you?

This is what I do; at the beginning of last year I took a course on the topic of consciousness. When you say things like different in degree not in kind, where's your reference? What does that even mean when many animals have sensory inputs far different from our own? How can conscious perception for things we have no experience of, not be different in kind? And if you're going to talk about degrees of consciousness that means you have a way to measure consciousness, right? The only theory on the market that I know of, which even suggests such a thing as degrees, is IIT. Have you read any of Tononi's work?

[The Grand Nudger]

A difference of degree rather than kind refers to the relationship between a calculator and a computer, a sparrow and an eagle. There is certainly a broad range of sensory ability in life. There is also a broad commonality of biological structure and correlative function. I'm referring to conscious perception as it's own kind, not the contents. Contents would be degrees. A cat sees more than we do, but we both see. That, in itself, is a bvoundary condition of consciousness. All conscious creatures are aware of what their specific sensory apparatus provides. Differences in that apparatus will provide for differences in the content of consciousness - but two being with seperate contents can both be conscious. This is certainly true of our experience, of experience. We don;t see what a bast sees, or smell what a dog smells. Sense isn't a level playing field, but we have advantages as well.

None of us imagines that our conscious content is identical, human to human. This is not a valid objection to non-human cognition.

(Not familiar with IIT. AST is more my jam. I'll look it up.)

[John 6IX Breezy]

For starters, most people would say sparrows and eagles are different kinds of birds, not different degrees of bird. So what are you talking about? Define your terms before giving examples.

[Mister Agenda]

Still trying to deny reality.

Last I looked, chimpanzees, orangs and dolphins have been conclusively demonstrated to exhibit altruism, empathy, conscience, grief, generosity, selflessness etc.

Since I am not current, other species may have been added.

Humans are no more than an ape. Your religion demands that you blindly deny anything that takes away from humans being special because GAWD.

Nobody can stop you wallowing in your own ignorance but you, yourself.

Such behaviors are not indicative of consciences.

And what behaviors WOULD be indicative of consciences?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Such behaviors are not indicative of consciences.

And what behaviors WOULD be indicative of consciences?

Its not about which behaviors; but if behavior can indicate consciousness in the first place. Take a look at the video below; you're hardwired to perceive intention from behavior. You might perceive that one triangle is a bully, etc., but they're just triangles, they're not thinking anything.

[Mister Agenda]

The fallacy you're making with that example is hasty generalization. It in no way follows from the illusion that the observation of behaviors consistent with conscience do not justify a conclusion of conscience. In the case of conscious animals, intent is not an illusion.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Its not an illusion; its how your brain operates. Unless you know a behavior can only occur in the presence of conscience, you cannot conclude conscience by observing the behavior.

[Mister Agenda]

Of course it can be concluded. 100% certainty isn't required to make a justified inference.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Ok and what percentage of certainty do you have? Can you share how you arrived at that number?