Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Here's an important question. Do you think a measurement is a correlation? Or vice versa, that a correlation is a measurement?

Or do you see them as separate concepts?

[The Grand Nudger]

We observe temperature by the position of a body of liquid in a vial. We observe voltage by the position of a needle on a machine face. We observe..everything, by their correlating conscious experiences...... You tell me.

-but this is the important part, at least with respect to stolen concepts...no matter what you tell me, you can't then assert the truth of what you would attempt to disprove. If you think that we can't observe temperature or voltage...then you can't simultaneously think that we observe the correlates of temperature and voltage. If you think that we can observe the correlates of temperature and voltage, then you can't simultaneously think that we can't observe temperature and voltage.

Note that I'm not telling you that it's impossible for you to be a complete loon or cretin with directly contradictory beliefs and a tendency to express them in incoherent sentences...pretty sure you are...only that this rats nest does not qualify as a valid..which is to say coherent, proposition.

[John 6IX Breezy]

In science, we observe things through measurement, not their correlation. Observation and measurement are interchangeable; observation and correlation are not. Agreed?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, I guess we don't observe temp and voltage either, then. That's fine. That's...fine. You can think as much. Don't tell me that we can observe their correlates, now. Observing somethings correlate is an observation of that something, just as surely as catshit means cats.

Like I said, I'm not interested in bickering with you, I'm insisting that you stop bickering with yourself.

You think that we observe behaviors, not the neural correlates of consciousness. If you simply expressed it this way, it would not have been a stolen concept fallacy. OFC< then, you wouldn't have the credibility of the field of cog sci at your disposal..though I'm not sure why you'd have such a hard on to steal it...seeing how completely you then shit on it with a string of bizarre and easily disproven claims.

Ah well, such is life, it isn't for any fact of that body that you hold the position that you do anyway - it's facts of another body of criticism that isn't specific to cog sci, but fundamental to the entire scientific process. It's not as if a bunch of researchers are churning out work on something they think they can't observe. So..you know, at least know which side of that little kerfuffle you belong on, right?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You're using the word "correlate" to describe the connection between a sensory stimuli and it's perception within the observer. In other words, you've shifted the goalpost, again.

Instead of how consciousness in others maps on their behavior (the topic of conversation), you've shifted to how the external world maps within our own consciousness. I disagree with using the word correlation in the context of perception; there's a causal relationship between a sensory stimuli and sensation, and between sensation and perception.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm still sitting here yammering on about the same thing I have been for pages..and those pages exist, yet another bizarre and easily disproven claim.

At issue, John, is a stolen concept. Not the truth of either of our positions..or any position. A position that contains a stolen concept can still be true. To assert otherwise is charmingly called the fallacy fallacy. At issue, is that you cannot simultaneously think that something is observable, and not observable.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You think that we observe behaviors, not the neural correlates of consciousness.

You've quoted me as saying we can observe the behavioral correlates of consciousness and the neural correlates of consciousness. So why are you making this up?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not you nutbar, lol. I'm noting that this statement is incoherent with respect to the very next words that fell out of your mouth. That we can't observe consciousness. Another bizarre and easily disprovable claim. You're really on a roll.

I'm flat out informing you....that -if- you think that we can observe the correlates of consciousness, which is something you've said we can do.... -then- you cannot simultaneously think that we cannot observe consciousness. Again, not an issue of whether or not you're a loon with directly contradictory beliefs. You told us that you were, and I believe you. The statement is a stolen concept fallacy. Asserting, and thus requiring, the truth of what you would seek to disprove.

It's not actually what you think, if you think that we can't observe consciousness. You think we observe behaviors and brain activity. If you thought these were the correlates of consciousness they would be observations of consciousness just as much as looking at a thermometer or voltmeter is an observation of temperature or voltage. Which, again, remember, you think they are not.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Good, so we agree that I've said neural correlates are observable, and you simply misspoke.

[The Grand Nudger]

Back to the straight troll. How precious.

-and still, a stolen concept. This is a real head scratcher. Given your expansive knowledge of the philosophy of science and true positions in cognitive science, why can't you reformulate your own position to exclude the stolen concept fallacy, and also, why can't you read?