Is God a logical contradiction?

[Mister Agenda]

I don't have a number for the probability that I'm not a brain in a jar in a sunless universe, but I still feel my inference that the earth will still be orbiting and rotating around one tomorrow is justified.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Great, I'm fine with just saying you have a feeling that animals have a conscience.

Random P.S:

The illusion, as you called it, is important because the deck is stacked against us. Your brain is designed to see intentions and mental states in others, not through logical deduction, but through projection. Mirror neurons are at the center of this, bridging the gap between the sensory and motor systems. You understand the behaviors of others by embodying the perception, and running a simulation of it as if you were the one doing it. This means that your inferences of other minds is entirely biased with your own. This is also perhaps why it's easier to imagine that apes have a conscience, but it becomes progressively harder to do so the less the animal looks like us. In part because they activate our mirror neurons less and less, and we project ourselves unto them less and less.

[Abaddon_ire]

I made consciousness a prerequisite for conscience, not interchanged the two. You can define conscience in any way you want (the feeling of right and wrong, a voice in your head, etc.), and as long as it is a conscious experience you cannot know if an animal has it.

As a sane person, I don't hear "voices in my head". 

And if we could not determine if an animal was experiencing "consciousness" or "conscience", then we can't determine if a human is either.

You really don't think this crap through, do you. That was not a question.

---

Great, I'm fine with just saying you have a feeling that animals have a conscience.

Random P.S:

The illusion, as you called it, is important because the deck is stacked against us. Your brain is designed to see intentions and mental states in others, not through logical deduction, but through projection. Mirror neurons are at the center of this, bridging the gap between the sensory and motor systems. You understand the behaviors of others by embodying the perception, and running a simulation of it as if you were the one doing it. This means that your inferences of other minds is entirely biased with your own. This is also perhaps why it's easier to imagine that apes have a conscience, but it becomes progressively harder to do so the less the animal looks like us. In part because they activate our mirror neurons less and less, and we project ourselves unto them less and less.

And now your claim is that fucking dolphins look so like us. Try listening to yourself. It's hilarious.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Dolphins are often seen as cheerful because their snout and clicks look and sound as if they're smiling or laughing. Not to mention a lot of people didn't like the live action lion king movie as much as the cartoon, despite being pretty much identical scene by scene. Probably because the cartoons were given more human-like facial expressions, whereas animals don't realistically have them. So we connect with the characters less.

[Abaddon_ire]

Dolphins are often seen as cheerful because their snout and clicks look and sound as if they're smiling or laughing. Not to mention a lot of people didn't like the live action lion king movie as much as the cartoon, despite being pretty much identical scene by scene. Probably because the cartoons were given more human-like facial expressions, whereas animals don't realistically have them. So we connect with the characters less.

What a spectacular display of ignorance. You should be ashamed of yourself yet I am certain you will not be.

Some people imagine that religion is all happy clappy nice but in reality it has a deeply ugly side. You are the case study for that ugly side.

Seriously, that level of ignorance is astonishing. You derive your information about the world around us that we actually fucking live in from cartoons on TV? 

If you really were that moronic, you would be unable to tie your own shoelaces let alone operate an internet device. Yet here you are, lying through your teeth for jebus. You are a liar and proud of it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Televisions are part of the world we live in, and if the effects mentioned can be observed even in cartoons, I don't see the issue with the example. You can help people get over phobias with cartoons and VR sets, so clearly it's a useful tool.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Already have.  You asked me how I would describe consciousness with respect to the possibility of non-human congnizance.  I probably wouldn't use the same semantics when describing species of bird.  "Kind" is not a designation of species.  

If you would prefer to use "kind" in this way, we can.  There are different "kinds" of consciousness.  No one expects their contents to be identical.  Some are more alike than others.  

None of this is instructive, however, as there's still no explanation of how this would be a problem anyway.  There's no point in us bickering over something that doesn't matter, agreed?  If there is no such thing as non human consciousness, then fine.  If there is, I say fine...but clearly this is not an acceptable proposition to you.

Why?

[Abaddon_ire]

Televisions are part of the world we live in, and if the effects mentioned can be observed even in cartoons, I don't see the issue with the example. You can help people get over phobias with cartoons and VR sets, so clearly it's a useful tool.

Ignorance can be sorted with appropriate education. Even plain information.

Idiocy is incurable.

[John 6IX Breezy]

-If you would prefer to use "kind" in this way, we can.

-If there is no such thing as non human consciousness, then fine.  If there is, I say fine...but clearly this is not an acceptable proposition to you. Why?

The only thing that's not acceptable to me are claims that suggest we know what other organisms experience (and that theres abundant evidence) when we know no such thing.

---

Kinds and degrees were your descriptions; I'm just trying to make sense of how you're using them. For example:

"Contents would be degrees. A cat sees more than we do, but we both see." -Gae

I have no issues using degrees within a specific sense, and saying that one organism has more or less of it than another. But if you're using degrees across senses it no longer makes sense (i.e. that vision and audition are different "degrees" of sensation), which you would need to do if you claim the consciousness of a bat differs from ours in degrees not kind.

And just to beat a dead horse you don't know what a cat sees. If you say a cat's retina is more sensitive to stimulation than ours, that's fine. But we're talking about conscious experience, and you have no idea if sight takes up more real estate in a cats consciousness than in ours.

[LastPoet]

What I do know about cats is that when bbqing fish, an army on the roof gathers...