Everything I said in that post runs exactly parallel to your memory/consciousness claims. I was just using our propositions about eyes/sight to simplify.RJG wrote: ↑July 25th, 2021, 4:59 pm Huh? Leon, this is a "strawman" argument here; this is not our argument!
Our argument (your objection #1) is based on my claim/statement that memory is required for consciousness. And your assertion that this means that animals without consciousness must not have memory. (...which is a logical error ["converse error"; "affirming the consequent"]).
What has happened in this thread is that you have amended your original statement, though without admitting it. Referencing my previous post, you amended proposition (1) to be proposition (2), and they are not logically equivalent. If you remember, this is what I said in my first post:
You did amend the sentence(s). Here are your original statements:Leontiskos wrote: ↑July 21st, 2021, 2:34 am...You say that recognition is a form of knowledge, but presumably you do not believe that animals have knowledge. If this is true then this sentence would need to be amended...
And here are your amended statements:
These two sets of statements are not logically equivalent. Indeed, to move from the first set to the second set would require the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent, which I explained in post #390465.
So this is the same argument as my Objection 1. There I pointed out a problem with your post and suggested an amendation. You have denied me every step of the way, but in reality you have made the amendation I suggested. I am just trying to get you to see the fact that you did in fact make an amendation: that the first set of statements is not logically equivalent to the second set.
-Leontiskos