Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

In science, the measurement is the observation. If you're measuring voltage, then you're observing voltage. Correlates on the other hand are relationships, not measurements; they have no dimensions and no units (with the exception of correlation coefficients in statistics). You don't measure anything with them, therefore, you can't observe anything with them.

You can, however, measure correlates themselves. You can measure a behavior. You can measure brain activity. I think this is where you're confused. Measuring a correlate of consciousness, is not the same as measuring consciousness itself. This is why the dictum "correlation is not causation" is so basic. Neural activity and behavior may correlate with consciousness for reasons that have nothing to do with consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

Maybe the needle on the voltmeter moves for reasons that have nothing to do with voltage, too. You're certainly free to take this position. Taking this position is not what reduced your statement to incoherence, and this position can be stated without employing the stolen concept that you did.

I even understand, fwiw ,what you mean when you say that we can't observe consciousness itself. I don't think you're right, obviously cog sci researchers aren't doing their research because they agree with this position, but it doesn't matter what I think, or what they think, or which of us, if any of us..are right. Like I keep telling you, a stolen concept has nothing to do with the truth of any of it's constituent parts. You desperately want to bicker over that, but it's simply not relevant to whether or not something is a stolen concept. The stolen concept can also be false.

You simply used semantics and made an assertion that relies on the thing you seek to disprove. That's it, that's how you managed a stolen concept. Not by getting it wrong. Getting it right wouldn't have helped either, whichever side you got right. It's an error of validity, not an issue of whether a proposition is sound. Take the lifeline. Be right about your assertion that we simply cannot observe consciousness. If that's true, and we long ago decided to assume it was....then we don't actually observe the correlates of consciousness and can't coherently insist as much. There is a more accurate and coherent set of semantics and assertions to establish whatever it is you meant by saying that. I've watched you fumble with those statements and positions a couple of times in thread, so I think you can do it with a little more practice. I've been in a similar situation plenty of times, right here on the boards. Learning and practicing realist semantics and assertions that I do and that I don't agree with in moral discussions.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Measurements can produce artefacts, and variables can interfere with measurements, but what doesn't change is that measurements are how we observe a phenomenon. This isn't the case with correlates. If a third-variable is responsible for consciousness and its correlate, we don't say that variable is interfering with our correlate the way we would if you pushed the needle of a voltmeter.

These are important concepts for you to understand.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like I said, maybe the voltmeter moves for reasons unrelated to voltage, too. Taking this position is not what makes something a stolen concept, neither the truth nor the falsehood of this position is relevant, so we can just go ahead and assume it's truth, too.

We can't observe voltage. Because we can't observe voltage, we aren't actually observing the correlates of voltage and can't coherently insist as much. We are observing a needle move on a widget.

[John 6IX Breezy]

This is what I mean by you mashing up the scientific sense of observation with the perceptual sense of observation. You as an individual may be observing the needle with your eyes; but in science the needle is the eye which makes the observation.

[The Grand Nudger]

Like an fmri being the eye that makes the observation, sure. Like I said, lets assume it's true. We can't observe consciousness, and because we can't observe consciousness, we aren't actually observing the correlates of consciousness and can't coherently insist as much. We are watching brain activity.

That is, actually, what you believe. Correct me if I'm wrong?

---

I'll go even further. What you would require, would be the ability to observe "what it's like to be". That is your consciousness itself. Would this also be accurate, or no?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You are correct that fMRIs are how we observe brain activity; but if the brain activity happens to be a correlate of consciousness, then we're observing a correlate of consciousness.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the brain activity happens to be correlates of consciousness... then we can, in fact, observe consciousness. This cannot be true, if, as you suggested, we cannot observe consciousness.

That's how you end up with a stolen concept fallacy. Not by getting something wrong. Do you see why it's pointless to argue with me about which position, if any, is the accurate one? How about consciousness itself, and what you would require to say that we can observe consciousness. I get that one right too? Was that also an accurate description of what you actually believe. The position you actually hold.

[John 6IX Breezy]

How are you jumping from observing correlates to observing consciousness? If cigarettes are correlated with cancer, no one would say we are observing cancer when we observe cigarettes.

[The Grand Nudger]

The same way we "jump" from voltmeters to voltage and thermometers to temperature. Obviously I don't think that's a jump and no one doing this kind of research thinks it is either.

But that doesn't matter. Assume..that I am wrong.. that they are wrong. Assume that it is a jump, an impossible jump.

Fine, okay, but if that's the line, you can't then go making that jump yourself. We do not observe the correlates of consciousness. We observe brain activity, we observe behavior.

Still wondering whether I got the consciousness itself bit right, it's actually fairly important. Every single time I've had this same discussion on these boards...alot of times..those have been the facts of c that actually inform the position. That...that, John, would rescue your position. You don't assert facts of b and then declare that b is false, you assert facts of c to establish that b is false. You just stepped in shit in that particular statement that we've been discussing in exactly the way I've repeatedly described to you (and we've all done it, all of us). If not, it might be even more interesting, because you can introduce me to some brand new way to shit the bed.

An error of validity, not truth.