Is God a logical contradiction?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you want me to google it for you, or can you google it yourself?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I rather you reference specific papers. You know, primary sources? The original source of the information.

[The Grand Nudger]

https://lmgtfy.com/?q=animal+consciousness

[John 6IX Breezy]

First three websites respectively:

1. "The topic of animal consciousness is beset with a number of difficulties. It poses the problem of other minds in an especially severe form because animals, lacking the ability to use human language, cannot tell us about their experiences. Also, it is difficult to reason objectively about the question, because a denial that an animal is conscious is often taken to imply that it does not feel, its life has no value, and that harming it is not morally wrong.

2. "Many scientists and philosophers remain convinced that even if some questions about animal minds are empirically tractable, no amount of experimentation can provide access to phenomenal consciousness per se. This remains true even among those who are willing to invoke cognitive explanations of animal behavior that advert to internal representations."

3. "'We can trigger these kinds of states that if you measured in an animal, you would say the animal is feeling fear,''" LeDoux said. “'But if we can’t use that information to conclusively demonstrate that a human is feeling fear or experiencing that state, then we certainly can’t use it every time an animal looks like he may be feeling afraid."'

I specially enjoyed the last website; I'm a fan of Joseph LeDoux which is why I've said the same things myself, see comment #279.

[The Grand Nudger]

Three hits among how many that you've decided to edit and display for content that conforms to your opinion? Anyone else can hit that same link, I obviously have. There's no point in fielding some doomed lie of omission.

Note that I'm not asking you to agree with the consensus of non human consciousness, only requesting that you acknowledge that it does, in fact, exist.

Fwiw, this is exactly what MA took you to task for, and is a stolen concept. If you want us to think that cognitive science is credible enough to be used as a premise in your own arguments...then you require it's truth. I noted this explicitly way back in ye olden times of post 337, explaining what you had offered directly above - that you have a genetic objection to reduction, but cog sci is reductive. If you object to reduction, you do not have the valid use of the facts of cog sci. If you do claim use of those facts, you cannot field a valid genetic objection.

To which you replied "Do you mean generic"...so, again, are we clear on terms like genetic objections and stolen concepts?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You're making stuff up again lol. 

1. Where is my objection to reduction? Quote me. It works where it works and it fails where it fails, see Sapolsky's Lecture.
2. What do you mean Cognitive Science is reductive lol. You seem to have no grasp on these terms and their interaction. David Chalmers, himself a cognitive scientist, is in favor of nonreductive explanations of consciousness: "Given that reductive explanation fails, nonreductive explanation is the natural choice" (2010, p. 16).

Reference: Chalmers, D. (2010). The character of consciousness. Oxford University Press: London.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said, anyone can click the link and see exactly what you saw.

Sure, reduction works where it works and it fails where it fails. If it fails in cog sci, though, you can't refer to any facts of cog sci. I'm not asking you to stop making your genetic objection, or to agree that your genetic objection is invalid in and of itself. You are certainly free to field that objection, as you've deigned to do again.

I'm only informing you that once you've made the objection, there is nothing in cog sci which you can then employ in a valid inference. The same situation that Objectivist described to you with the supernatural, and identity.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's pretty hilarious; so where's my quote objecting to reduction? Any reference showing that Cognitive Science is logically dependant on reduction or are these just your intuitions lol?

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you unclear on the reductive nature of -all- science....as well? Want me to google that for you too? Again, you're allowed to have genetic objections, and those genetic objections may well be true. Explaining a stolen concept to you isn't telling you that you can't believe what you do. It's cautioning you against an invalid form of expressing it.

It's even more ludicrous to bicker over the contents of a conversation that you and I are having together, and were both present for, and is recorded on the boards..than it is to bicker over whether there's a scientific consensus of non human consciousness...also recorded on the boards... that you clicked a link for, and immediately saw pages of reference to.

Are you capable of having a conversation without shitting the bed?

[John 6IX Breezy]

The quote doesn't exist; but I appreciate you cautioning me against irrelevant dangers lol.

I feel compelled to caution you against playing dead for black bears should you ever encounter one; the method works primarily for grizzly bears. Maybe its the other way around? I guess we both don't know what we're talking about.