..."where consciousness does not exist and is is illusionary"
i have to say i dont think anyone who actually subscribes to a philosophy that they are illusions, which is the only thing i can deduce from the above statement, has any capacity for logical thought at all. i am indeed relieved to know it is not your philosophy!
My guess would be that pathfinder refers to Daniel Dennett who is kind of 'infamous' for questioning concepts like free will.
He doesn't accept the concept of 'consciousness as an ontological entity'.
However i don't think that consciousness is illusionary to him.
Free will is illusionary to him. Which for many people means the same as consciousness is illusionary.
Back to the topic:
Is logic universal?
Recently i posted a reply to Salima that explains how every system can have its own logic.
There are two different meanings of the word logic.
If you want to explain to somebody how a hand pully block works you first have to understand its logic.
Furthermore there are systems like different languages that are based each on its own logic.
In this sense logic means 'the way something is arranged (its particular order)'.
The most common meaning of the word 'logic' however refers to the universal logic.
'Logic' as a philosophical discipline is an attempt to find those rules that 'everything' is based upon - universal rules.
The reasons why there can be different opinions about it are normally lack of knowledge.
Actually Logic is a highly abstract discipline that takes study.
It takes knowledge in mathematical concepts like set theory to name only one subject to study.
Many people confuse it with subjective concepts of 'what is obvious', 'what is reasonable', etc...
Most people simply have partial knowledge of the discipline Logic. This partial knowledge leads to many false assumptions.
For example many people consider the inversion of an argument a valid logical tool.
Most people have never understood the relevance of a condition being wether obligatory or sufficent for being a valid proof (i don't know the precise english terms, but if you are familiar with logic you will know what i mean).
Most people don't see wether an argument is including or excluding.
These are certainly the most common reasons for misunderstandings about wether something is logic or not.
Logic as a discipline has the demand of being universal.
However one can argue that the only proof we have for our discipline of logic is based on empirical observation. From a logical perspective this does not provide logical evidence.
Thus a logical rule is only valid until it is refuted.
Things like that happen.
Newton's laws of mechanics were supposed to be the fundemantal (physical) logic of our universe.
This (very proudly and loudly called out) claim was refuted.
However this was about the physical logic of the universe. (Remember logic can refer to particular systems, in this case a particular aspect of the system).
Pure logic as a discipline has so far been confronted with unresolvable issues (paradox), however so far it has not been refuted.
Up to now it's universal.