Is God a logical contradiction?

[The Grand Nudger]

The issue isn't my understanding of stolen concept; but your understanding of scientific methodology and consciousness in general.

You do not have the background necessary to identify when something is logically dependent on something else when it comes to cognitive science.

Sure I do, anyone does.  You don't need any specific background to point out a self refuting idea, like your sentence that asserts observation while concluding observation is impossible.  

Our conversation has nothing to do with cognitive science, it has to do with you communicating your objection by invalid forms, repeatedly. We could be talking about any subject, and any comments in that form are still a stolen concept. I'm pretty sure you could come up with one about ice cream and potato chips. Why don't you just fix your shitmouth instead of arguing that your shitmouth is totally perfect, and no one knows enough to correct you, lol?

As I've said repeatedly, it's only a problem because you framed it the way you did, so lets take your statement on observing consciousness and fix it.

As we've noted, a stolen concept asserts b as truth, but concludes that b is false. So all you have to do, is remove the assertion of b. In your case, that we can observe correlates of consciousness yadda ydda ydda. Without that preamble, there's nothing wrong with your objection, at least as far as it's logical form.

[Mister Agenda]

John's actual objection seems to be that he doesn't think that the available evidence is sufficient to support a conclusion of consciousness/awareness in higher animals. It seems that he believes that sufficient evidence isn't even possible since animals can't talk (he says, leaving an opening for a tangent on animal communication, particularly sign language in apes which some apes have used to convey emotional content such as missing someone). That' s not invalid in itself, but it's just an opinion. It doesn't require rejection of the facts of cognitive science, just some of its common conclusions.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC, the conclusion that he wishes to keep safe is not, in itself, invalid. It's always been the manner he's chosen to express it. That's always the case with issues of logical validity.

He can say that we can't observe consciousness, but not at the same time as he insists that we can observe the correlates of consciousness. We observe the correlates of voltage as well..and this is exactly what we are referring to when we say that we observe voltage.

Requiring the truth, of what we are simultaneously trying to disprove. A stolen concept.

The easiest way to fix the statement, is also an open and honest way to fix the statement. Rather than saying facts of b, therefore no facts of b..field the actual objection that leads a person to the conclusion, which is not mechanically invalid. Facts of c, therefore no facts of b.

[Abaddon_ire]

John's actual objection seems to be that he doesn't think that the available evidence is sufficient to support a conclusion of consciousness/awareness in higher animals. It seems that he believes that sufficient evidence isn't even possible since animals can't talk (he says, leaving an opening for a tangent on animal communication, particularly sign language in apes which some apes have used to convey emotional content such as missing someone). That' s not invalid in itself, but it's just an opinion. It doesn't require rejection of the facts of cognitive science, just some of its common conclusions.

I wonder what he makes of prostitution in monkeys? And penguins?

[John 6IX Breezy]

He can say that we can't observe consciousness, but not at the same time as he insists that we can observe the correlates of consciousness."

As already mentioned, the correlation is built on an assumption that others are conscious and that they can communicate it with us. The only fact that everyone is certain of is that they themselves are conscious, the rest is conjecture more or less. Without the assumption that others are conscious and that it can be communicated, we don't have much to go by.

When you say you see red, I simply believe you. Once I have, observing you stop at a red light becomes a behavioral correlate of consciousness; or I can strap you in an fMRI and whatever lights up when you see red becomes a neural correlate of consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

It isn't, but there's no point in arguing over the contents, since, as ever, a stolen concept is an issue of genetic validity. Not whether the propositions are sound, or which group of propositions are sound.

If we can't observe consciousness, we can't observe it's correlates. If we can observe it's correlates, we can observe consciousness. A person can decide to fall on either side of that line, but whichever side they fall on..they cannot then assert, and so require, the truth of the other. That, is a stolen concept.

You don't actually believe that we can observe the correlates of consciousness yourself. You don't think we can observe whether or not there is a consciousness to have correlates -at all-. There's no reason to include them in your statement, particularly when they damage the statements validity.

Now...I don't think that your position (even a repaired version of your position) is coherent, I strongly suspect that you're mistaking seeing the show a person is watching with being able to tell that a person is watching a show, and I know for a fact that you have ideological reasons to insist as much...but we're never going to get to that more accurate and more productive discussion, are we, lol?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You're not going to get anywhere by tearing things down before understanding them. You believe that "you don't need any specific background to point out a self refuting idea." I think that's problematic.

"The NCC are typically assessed by determining which aspects of neural function change depending on whether a subject is conscious or not, as established using behavioural reports" (Tononi and Koch, 2015, p. 2).

Behavioral reports, in other words communication, are how these correlates are assessed. This is how the field operates; these are the terms the field uses; and these are the methods the field employs. Most of what I've said is an echo of the literature on consciousness, adapted to the context of the forum. Your issues are with the field in general, not with me.

Reference: Tononi G, Koch, C. (2015). Consciousness: Here, there and everywhere? Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society B, 370, p. 1-11.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're still trying to bicker over contents, which is how I know that you've failed to understand a stolen concept despite much effort by many members to explain it to you.

It is -fine- if you think that we can't observe consciousness.

But again, as you note, these are the terms, these are the methods.

Exactly! Those are the asserted facts of b. You think they are not facts. You cannot assert the facts of b, and so require the facts of b, if your position is that they are not facts of b. This conversation could be about bananas or xylophones or the price of gulf shrimp in maine....this form is always invalid, always a stolen concept.

-and you could fix it. You could fix it, but you just can't bring yourself to accept that even though your position may be valid and true, you've chosen to express it in an invalid way. It cannot be true -as stated-, but that doesn't mean that it can't be true.

I could even offer a little bit of that basic psychology - the reason that you refuse to jettison the self refuting component of your statements about your own beliefs..is that you greatly value the self refuting portion. You hilariously claimed, for example, that science was your religion. This is why you cannot give up science, even as you call it's fundamental premises into question while simultaneously asserting the same. This is usually why a person decides to steal a concept. It has value, and makes their statement seem more credible - not just to others, to themselves.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You complained about observing the correlates of consciousness without observing consciousness. I explained to you what cognitive scientists mean by correlates, and how they're assessed. There's nothing more to it.

Was that not what you said?

[The Grand Nudger]

You can always go back and re-read what I've said. The forums exist. I, otoh, can only throw you a lifeline so many times before I have to accept that you would rather be wrong than right, even if you didn't have to change your position in the slightest.