The Accessibility Of Evidence For Animal Consciousness

Long before camera-enhanced observation of the natural world and its resident creatures, anyone--given that they lived near animals--with a functioning sense of sight could witness a variety of non-human creatures.  More than this, it is clear from the outward behaviors of animals as perceived by human onlookers that they appear to be conscious.  The evidence for this is largely the same as it is for other humans being conscious, despite how I can only know the existence and contents of my own mind as far as phenomenology goes.  They move their heads and limbs, react to things like noises and environmental factors, and engage in other actions that would suggest if performed by humans that they have their own interior, immaterial minds.

For all the controlled studies or technology-fortified examinations of the modern era pertaining to animal behaviors, the evidence for animal consciousness was accessible at all times that humans have lived alongside other macroscopic beings.  From ants to squids to salmon to vultures to bears, many animals regularly display external indicators that very strongly suggest, but do not logically prove, that they perceive and think.  Some cooperate with up to thousands of fellow creatures, such as bees, and others can employ color and texture mimicry to conceal themselves amidst their surroundings, like the mimic octopus--which can even imitate the waving motion of seaweed alongside matching the color and texture.

Science never epistemologically goes beyond mere perception and thus potential illusion.  It can at most provide evidence, based on fallible sensory experiences, of things that seem to be true but might not be, as it does not logically follow that what one perceives is really the case beyond one's own mind unless there is logical necessity.  However, there is evidence entirely outside the context of formally documented scientific endeavors that animals have perception and are not automatons without minds.  This evidence still hinges on sensory observation, but it does not have to be arbitrarily elaborate, prolonged, or socially conducted.  Anyone who has seen any insect, dog, bird, or any other non-human organism perform actions, particularly reactive ones, can avoid assumptions and realize that while it is possible for these behaviors to be illusory when it comes to pointing towards animal consciousness, it truly seems otherwise.

The unknowable nature of whether one's sensory perceptions correspond to something real in the external world of matter (with one category of exceptions [1]) does not dispel this evidence.  Other than something like organized human speech, there is often the same amount of evidence for animals being conscious as there is for other people being conscious.  Can one know from another person speaking or eating or walking really has mental awareness?  No, one cannot know given human limitations if other minds of any kind actually exist, yet they absolutely seem to.  This is not so simply for humans.  A plethora of animals, which do appear to have either a lesser mental of physical status than that of people, nonetheless by all appearances likely are animated by genuine consciousness just as I am.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/dreams-and-consciousness.html

The Benefits Of Cohabitation

While it might be used by some as an excuse for casual sex or to ironically put off deeper commitment, cohabitation is a way for unmarried (in the legal sense) romantic partners to become more familiar with each other in wholly nonsexual ways, to express daily respect and love for each other, and to see how a lifelong relationship would look for individuals with their personalities.  Leaping into cohabitation without at least learning of a person's valid worldview and their psychological compatibility as a partner is certainly asinine.  This is absolutely true.  At the same time, living with one's romantic partner if the shared bond and one's circumstances permit it has its objective advantages that are there for rational and sincere partners.

There is more of a chance for any subjective annoyances, personality conflicts, or even worldview divergences to come up for people who need lots of regular time together to open up.  Yes, all of these things can be pinpointed entirely apart from cohabitation, and some of them would have to already be brought up for cohabitation to even be rational, yet living together before legal marriage--which can be the same as living together in sincere, lifelong commitment for rational, morally valid reasons--makes it more likely that a partner will not postpone bringing up important problems in the relationship or that he or she will not remain silent about important ideological or personality details.  Seeing what daily, informal life would be like together could accelerate their willingness to communicate things that they might otherwise be content to leave to the side indefinitely or for a time.

This is the greatest benefit that cohabitation in particular allows for: things that a couple might be more likely to otherwise forget about or not bring up could come to mutual attention sooner or with greater frequency.  Bonding that could occur in a more staggered manner outside of cohabitation could also be quickened.  Saving time on deepening a holistic connection, each member of a couple living together could realize more swiftly if a lifelong relationship based on rationality, mutuality, transparency, and affection can be sustainably enjoyed with their partner.  Cohabitation could be misused like anything else, but it does not lack pragmatically beneficial aspects that are there for any willing partners living together to receive.

All of these potential benefits of cohabitation, though, are not what makes it Biblically permissible.  It does not contradict God's moral nature and thus is neither condemned directly or by logical extension of other commands, making it objectively nonsinful for everyone who does not use it as an opportunity to practice something else that is immoral (Deuteronomy 4:2).  There is far more to cohabitation as a philosophical issue than whether people will have sex, which is decided by them and not in any way by their living situation, and which is not necessarily sinful to begin with (Exodus 22:16-17 opposes noncommittal sex, not sex before legal marriage, which is inherently a social construct unlike whatever moral obligations exist).  A rationalistic, righteous couple could have much to gain from living together, even if only the joy of celebrating the bond that they had already cultivated outside of cohabitation.

Game Review--Dementium: The Ward (Switch)

"My Sweet Amanda, I am sorry I can not be there for you . . . he did not harm me.  I was already gone when he found me."

--Note, Dementium: The Ward

For the third time, the original Dementium game debuts on a Nintendo handheld (or hybrid) system.  Is it at its best?  Unfortunately, this is far from it.  The DS was extremely restricted in its technical capabilities.  Dementium was one of the somewhat rare first-person shooters on this vastly underpowered platform.  The 3DS allowed for better graphics, with the respawning enemies being taken care of as well.  On the Switch, especially when played in docked mode, Dementium's visual limitations as a game--not the system it is on, but the game itself--have not been addressed.  This is a step backwards, and not just visually.  As you can see from the screenshots, especially compared to the ones I took of the 3DS remaster years ago, the graphics do not look great whatsoever.  Why the capabilities of the Switch were not better used for this of all things is an enormous waste of potential.  It reflects the general quality of the game's third version on the most advanced platform of any release: nothing has been seriously improved, if at all, and the game is in fact worse than Dementium Remastered for the 3DS.

Production Values

The graphics are distinctively less impressive than ever on one level--the Switch is the most powerful system Dementium has released for, and the larger screen combined with the ability to play it on a TV are not kind to the very retro-style graphics.  This way, the un-updated aesthetic is on full display, showcasing just how little was improved for this second re-release.  What music there is can work thematically for the setting and themes, but there is a very limited tracklist.  The narrow boundaries on the kind of horror experience offered here have never been more glaring due to the greater power of the Switch over Nintendo's prior handhelds.

Gameplay

Puzzles must be solved that require things like counting the eyes on corpses in a particular room or pressing piano keys in a certain sequence.  These often range from overly simple to rather vague.  Mingled with the item hunts or other puzzles is combat, something very, very basic.  Since the DS was so restricted in its visual power, the NPC attack patterns are extremely simple.  There is literally one way for the common enemies to fight you.  To see them, you need to be very close or have the flashlight turned on.  Unlike in Dementium II, the flashlight cannot be active while a weapon is equipped.  The player has to manually switch between a flashlight and firearms or melee weapons like the baton or electric buzzsaw and let the darkness ensue.

A very unusual--and not in a creative or positive way--item problem is also present.  The entire function of the notebook mechanic from the DS and 3DS versions of the game is removed, yet the notebook itself is not, as one cannot use the Switch touch screen or any buttons to input actual notes.  The book sits there useless in the player inventory.  One can take screenshots using the button on the left Switch Joy-Con, which is even better for taking notes for puzzles and navigation, but this does not make it any less gratuitous, if not stupid, for the notebook to still be obtained and displayed in the inventory along with items that truly are usable.  Dementium was designed for the dual screens of the DS/3DS and the developers of the Switch port did not modify this mechanic to fit the sole screen of the subsequent platform.

Story

Some spoilers are below.

The player character wakes up after perceptions of being rolled by wheelchair inside a building full of strange humanoids.  Upon regaining sensory awareness, he finds clues about his seeming past as the murderer of his wife.  He also obtains various weapons and tools that help him navigate around the floors of a hospital inhabited by monstrous beings.  With time, more clues about his potential crime come to light.

Intellectual Content

The metaphysics and epistemology of perception as they relate to neuroscience and phenomenology are used more as undeveloped plot points than philosophical themes testifying to what can be known (such as that one's sensory perceptions exist and can be known to with absolute certainty, whereas one cannot know if what one sees or hears reflects the actual external world).  The ending does strongly imply that William only dreamed his trek through the hospital and the creatures therein when the Doctor is shown operating on him, but the buildup never does much to explore any of this.  This is especially unfortunate because the isolation or desperation of protagonist William Redmoor could have been used in conjunction with a deeper, rationalistic look at mind-body dualism, the epistemology of the senses, and the individualistic impact of guilt on people.  Too aimless and tame to rise to the level of the best Silent Hill games, which it was initially pitched to Konami as, Dementium: The Ward does not do its own subject matter justice.

Conclusion

The Switch has become a haven for ports, remasters, and remakes from many console generations across different systems.  It is where one can play everything from the definitive editions from the early Darksiders series to Agony's unrated version (it just is not called that on the eShop!) to Metroid Prime Remastered and the remake of Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door.  Not every game ported to or remastered for the Switch is going to be excellent, whether because of the game itself, the technical limitations of the platform, or poor porting/remastering on the developer side of things.  Dementium: The Ward is not one of the better arrivals among them.  If you have access to the 3DS remaster, it is a better game simply for having its aesthetic integrity retained more than on the Switch and for actually utilizing its touch screen as originally intended for the initial DS release.  This is one hell of a lackluster resurgence for Dementium--how unfortunate it is that we keep only getting the first game resurrected as well.

Content:

 1.  Violence:  There is blood when enemies are attacked or killed.  The humanoid enemies have nails driven into their eye sockets.

Stupidity Is Rarely Alone

All truths are connected to other truths, either because they are necessary truths that dictate contingent truths or because they are contingent truths that stand on necessary truths.  There is no such thing as a truth that is wholly disconnected from the core of reality, logical axioms.  Even if someone was to recognize the basic epistemological self-evidence and necessary nature of logical axioms, in believing some other thing through assumptions or inconsistency, he or she might not just believe in the one error.  This is quite uncommon in rationalists.  In fact, it is uncommon to find a fully devoted rationalist who seems to believe in anything because of assumptions, but in a non-rationalist's worldview, one will almost never find just a single contradiction or fallacy.

One error is almost never isolated.  Stupidity is rarely alone, and when irrationality actually is isolated, it is ironically likely that it is a rationalist who has for some reason embraced a very specific error or made an assumption.  Irrationalists are not even trying to avoid errors except perhaps in bursts of incomplete, misguided motivations or in the context of ideas they have only assumed to be true.  If someone is a misogynist, they are almost inevitably a misandrist as well, even if neither they nor others realizes it.  If someone is a relativist, there cannot be just one thing they are wrong about.  If someone is an adherent of scientism, fitheism, anti-realism, or one of many other false philosophies, they have already ignored more than just one truth.

While logic governs truths about everything, truly rational people do not systematically allow sensory experiences, emotional appeal, subjective persuasion, epistemological faith, hearsay (especially of a historical or scientific kind), or cultural norms lure them away from alignment with reason into assumptions or contradictory beliefs.  A perfectly rational person does not allow these things to shape their beliefs at all except when it comes to recognizing perceptions or probabilities secondary to purely logical truths.  Some rationalists might lapse in certain ways or for a time, uncharacteristically lowering their philosophical accuracy, but not only can they catch themselves without the need for someone else to prompt them, but this does not reflect on them as a philosopher in other areas.  Non-rationalists, to the contrary, are defined by their stupidity no matter what they happen to dwell on or acknowledge, for they lack an awareness of or submission to the logical axioms that all things hinge on.

Now, truth is correct and verifiable things are verifiable no matter how many errors someone believes.  It is not that people need to avoid irrationalism because they might otherwise slip into an even greater, more fallacious irrationalism or as if there is some arbitrary number of errors which only then make a person irrationalistic.  There is no justification for believing in anything false or assumed, for to assume even something trivial is to believe without logical proof and to deny or disregard the laws of logic is the ultimate betrayal of reality.  All the same, errors are seldom believed alone, and the more someone believes in irrational metaphysics or epistemology, the more likely they are to be open to even more irrationality, if not to outright diving into more of it.