Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

"...and the inference is further justified by examining its brain activity and seeing that it is similar to ours when we feel pain."

I keep thinking about your statement above; and I think its important to warn you about fMRI studies. We can approach this in several ways. The first is to keep in mind that such studies have an alarming rate of false positives; somewhere between 10% are false positives and 30% are questionable (Eklund, et al., 2016). Here's an >article< that shows you can find brain activity in the head of a dead fish if you don't use the appropriate corrections, and many studies get published that don't make the appropriate corrections.

There's quite a bit if professional contention in the cognitive sciences, particularly between psychologists and cognitive neuroscientists, but also in-house between molecular neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists (cognitive neuroscientists are usually the ones doing fMRI studies). In short, many cognitive scientists looks down on fMRI studies. There's two reasons for this. The first has to do with the scientific credibility of such studies (e.g. Cluster Failure). The second my professor calls "seducing the public." People tend to think something isn't scientific unless they see pretty brain pictures with colors; and when they see it they exaggerate the implications. This affects the type of studies that get funded; it even affects the type of studies that major journals like to publish. I recommend reading a review by Cacioppo and colleagues (2003); its fairly simple introduction to fMRI and issues surrounding it.


References:

Eklund, A., Nichols, T., Knutsson, H. (2016). Cluster failure: Why fMRI inferences for spatial extent have inflated false-positive rates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, p. 7900-7905.

Cacioppo, J., Bernston, G., Lorig, T., Norris, C., Rickett, E., Nusbaum, H. (2003). Just because you're imaging the brain doesn't mean you can stop using your head: A primer and set of first principles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, p. 650-661.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

---

In your opinion it's insufficient. Are you against allowing someone who is brain-dead to die?

And again, if animals are incapable of pain and suffering, there's no such thing as cruelty to animals.

I'm not against letting someone whose brain-dead die.

It seems to me you are very biased towards needing animals to have consciousness. The absence of consciousness seems to affect the way you look at your dog, the way you view cruelty to animals, etc. Why does cruelty to animals matter here? Consciousness doesn't become real just because you've build other concepts on top of it.

Since you've defined consciousness in such a way that a being without it cannot be said to feel pain, your position is directly relevant to whether it's truly possible to be cruel to animals. It's a consequence of you position. It doesn't make your position wrong, but you cannot consistently hold it and claim that cruelty to animals is...cruel.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's fine; since I'm only concerned with whether or not animals have consciousness, I'm not concerned with the repercussions on cruelty.

Also make sure you're not misrepresenting my position. You're treating it as if I'm claiming animals don't have consciousness; I can't claim they don't for the same reasons you can't claim they do.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's possible to live in a world where human beings mistakenly attribute conscious experience to some behavior when it is not present, even as animals have conscious experience that we do not have in mind. The one is not a valid objection to the other.

This is the burnt earth strategy, above, lol. Assert that it's 50/50 either way and no one can know. It's not, and people who have no specific objection to scientific inferences have a means to know that you, apparently, do not.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I've never said it's 50/50; the probability is bound to differ across species. I've also never said no one can know; just not by looking at behavior.

[Objectivist]

I think those that promote the notion that we live in a simulation are guilty of the fallacy of the stolen concept.  Notice what those who promote this hypothesis are doing.  We are expected to know and accept that there is such a thing as computers, that computers can run simulations, that someone exists that could program such a simulation and that such simulated realities are absolute, but we aren't able to know whether the things we perceive are real.  They don't realize that all these higher-level concepts rest on much more fundamental concepts and ultimately axiomatic concepts that they are denying with their hypothesis. They don't understand this because they don't have a conceptual understanding of knowledge.

I tell you what, if everyone knew about and thoroughly understood stolen concepts, such notions as the simulation theory would be laughed off the stage.

---

What is the fallacy of the stolen concept? From its name and your response to Sungula, it sounds as if you're saying its wrong because its recycling/stealing the concept of the cartoon universe.

From the way you write it sounds as if you're into philosophy. I understand that most of these terms go beyond what I'm familiar with in science and have a life of their own in philosophy. This is interesting because the Simulation Theory seems to be born out of philosophy. I first heard of it in a podcast with David Chalmers, and I think Nick Bostrom is also one of the leading proponents. My point is this: I agree that if the proponents of Simulation Theory are scientists and/or computer scientists, that they may not have a conceptual understanding of knowledge, etc., since they're typically not trained in philosophy. But since the people that seem to play around with the idea the most are philosophers, I would assume they more than anyone else would understand these terms and avoid these fallacies.

The fallacy of the stolen concept occurs when one uses a concept while ignoring or negating a more fundamental concept on which it depends such as the way that calculus depends on the validity of basic mathematics.  So if you were to say that calculus is good but basic mathematics is invalid or useless you would be to steal the concept of calculus.  Some more examples:  Asking why there is something rather than nothing?  Cause presupposes existence so using the concept of causation in the absence of existence would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept.  The notion of the supernatural commits this fallacy because no concept can transcend the law of identity.  The statement that all sex is rape obviously commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.  Here's a trickier one:  using the concept of morality while denying free will.   Here's one I hear all the time:  How do you know that your senses and reason are valid? People get tripped up by this question, even some atheists that I really admire because they don't have an understanding of concepts.  The proper answer is, by the way, that the question is invalid.  It makes use of stolen concepts.  Knowledge presupposes a means of knowledge and my means of knowledge are my senses and reason.  If they weren't valid then I could have no knowledge.  This is not meant as a proof that the senses are valid, only that the concept of knowledge presupposes the validity of the senses.  Such a proof would fall victim to the fallacy of the stolen concept.

Some stolen concepts are subtle and hard to spot while others are obvious once you understand the fallacy.  The one thing these examples all have in common is using a higher level concept while denying or ignoring that concept's roots.  Like all fallacies, it represents a breach of logic.  Logic is what gives knowledge its hierarchical structure.  Using a concept apart from its underpinning concepts amounts to the breach of logic.  

There's a lot of bad philosophy out there, and some of those bad philosophical ideas have wormed their way into the hard sciences and the humanities are riddled with it.  Most people start in midstream with philosophy and take a whole bunch of stuff for granted.  They never examine fundamental principles.  Everyone could benefit from a conceptual understanding of knowledge.  In fact if you want to change the world for the better this is what needs to happen.  Children should be taught what concepts are, how they're formed, how they're validated, what the relationship between concepts and percepts is.  What universality really means.  How concepts are integrated into more abstract concepts.  How to think in terms of essentials.  They should be taught the proper method of induction.  When they get older they should be taught the principle of measurement omission which is the key to understanding universality.  My kids had no trouble understanding these things.  One day my daughter pointed out a stolen concept in something we heard on the radio.  I was so proud.  You want to put a serious dent in racism, Teach an understanding of concepts. The whole time I was in school, both public and in college, I was never taught any of this.  I was never taught how to reason.  I was never even given a definition of reason.  Instead, I was taught what to think and to memorize a bunch of floating abstractions which I promptly forgot because none of it had any connection to reality, no objective meaning.  I wish I had been taught about all this stuff in school.  I would have been philosophically armed against irrational bullshit.  But the last thing the powers that be want is people able to think for themselves.  

 I think the reason this fallacy is so pervasive is that our education system is designed to stunt the conceptual faculty of children.  It's expressly designed to create anti-conceptual, concrete bound mentalities.  

Well, I hope this helps.  I'll be glad to point you to some more detailed information about stolen concepts if you'd like.

[John 6IX Breezy]

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.

[Abaddon_ire]

The fallacy of the stolen concept occurs when one uses a concept while ignoring or negating a more fundamental concept on which it depends such as the way that calculus depends on the validity of basic mathematics. 

Alas, you have mistakenly assumed your protagonist understands basic math let alone calculus.

[Objectivist]

The fallacy of the stolen concept occurs when one uses a concept while ignoring or negating a more fundamental concept on which it depends such as the way that calculus depends on the validity of basic mathematics. 

Alas, you have mistakenly assumed your protagonist understands basic math let alone calculus.

Yeah, I know, but if he's really interested he can do further study.  This stuff is not too complicated if I can grasp it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

There's a lot of bad philosophy out there, and some of those bad philosophical ideas have wormed their way into the hard sciences and the humanities are riddled with it.  Most people start in midstream with philosophy and take a whole bunch of stuff for granted.  They never examine fundamental principles.  Everyone could benefit from a conceptual understanding of knowledge.  In fact if you want to change the world for the better this is what needs to happen.  Children should be taught what concepts are, how they're formed, how they're validated, what the relationship between concepts and percepts is.  What universality really means.  How concepts are integrated into more abstract concepts.  How to think in terms of essentials.  They should be taught the proper method of induction.  When they get older they should be taught the principle of measurement omission which is the key to understanding universality.  My kids had no trouble understanding these things.  One day my daughter pointed out a stolen concept in something we heard on the radio.  I was so proud.  You want to put a serious dent in racism, Teach an understanding of concepts. The whole time I was in school, both public and in college, I was never taught any of this.  I was never taught how to reason.  I was never even given a definition of reason.  Instead, I was taught what to think and to memorize a bunch of floating abstractions which I promptly forgot because none of it had any connection to reality, no objective meaning.  I wish I had been taught about all this stuff in school.  I would have been philosophically armed against irrational bullshit.  But the last thing the powers that be want is people able to think for themselves.  

 I think the reason this fallacy is so pervasive is that our education system is designed to stunt the conceptual faculty of children.  It's expressly designed to create anti-conceptual, concrete bound mentalities.  

Well, I hope this helps.  I'll be glad to point you to some more detailed information about stolen concepts if you'd like.

I agree with you that philosophy is important; scientists rarely get taught any, or are taught to look down on it. I definitely wish I had a better foundation which is why I'm enrolled in a Cognitive Science program. Cognitive Science is an interdisciplinary approach to cognition, so it incorporates psychology, neuroscience, computer science, and philosophy. We've had philosophy teachers come in and teach us a thing or two about the philosophy of science and the philosophy of mind, and last year I had to take a course on the philosophy of neuroscience specifically. But as you mentioned it feels as if we're starting midstream, and theres a bunch of basic stuff that I feel we should know, but there's just not enough time to learn.

I have a pretty good grasp of psychology and neuroscience; but when it comes to philosophy and computer science its a foreign language to me. That's part of the reason why I was listening to an artificial intelligence podcast interviewing David Chalmers, where they brought up the Simulation Theory.