RE: Is God a logical contradiction?
February 20, 2020 at 2:27 am
(This post was last modified: February 20, 2020 at 2:33 am by The Grand Nudger.)
There we are. You don't think "facts of b, therefore not b", which is an accurate if problematic reduction of the statement you made that we've been discussing. You never had to step in shit. Now, I can tell you why you've lost the pulse, but no amount of me being right or wrong, or you being right or wrong, will change the fact that you stepped in shit.
No researcher is claiming to be able to livestream the contents of another subjects conscious experience. We can't do it for animals, we can't do it for people. It may not be impossible..but it's certainly true that we cant do it now. They are not claiming access to the contents of a bats subjective experience. They are telling you, as a consensus, that they have every reason to believe..and no reason not to believe, that some animals, themselves, have access to a subjective experience. That they can observe consciousness is a consistent and valid application of the semantics and methods used to make the same claim in any other context - you simply disagree with it.
Being able to tell you whats on a show a person is watching is not the same thing as being able to tell you that a person is watching a show - but even here, researchers aren't exactly in the dark. That's your own fun little hurdle, and I'm sure that if we ever did manage to jump it, you'd scurry off and find another you deem equally or even more implausible for science to cover in your lifetime, or at least the lifetime of your pointless arguments with me or anyone else.
I don't need you to acknowledge this on the board, but I want you to egage in the nanosecond worth of introspection it takes to realize that I know this just as I knew what your position was even though you're a shit mouthed troll who doesn't understand basic logical validity and can't express his own beliefs in a coherent manner..I still knew what you believed. You're fielding a genetic objection to the entire field of cog sci, and to all science, so you don't get to buddy up to any asserted fact of cog sci. You cannot require the truth of that which you seek to disprove. It is invalid, it is a stolen concept. The idea that we can observe the correlates of consciousness is an asserted truth of a position which you seek to disprove. That position, their position, must be true, for that notion to be true, and you cannot assert that it is while arguing that it is not. If you think that they have it wrong, and that science can't observe consciousness...then accept your own position, live with it, and don't dip into the position that you reject.
No researcher is claiming to be able to livestream the contents of another subjects conscious experience. We can't do it for animals, we can't do it for people. It may not be impossible..but it's certainly true that we cant do it now. They are not claiming access to the contents of a bats subjective experience. They are telling you, as a consensus, that they have every reason to believe..and no reason not to believe, that some animals, themselves, have access to a subjective experience. That they can observe consciousness is a consistent and valid application of the semantics and methods used to make the same claim in any other context - you simply disagree with it.
Being able to tell you whats on a show a person is watching is not the same thing as being able to tell you that a person is watching a show - but even here, researchers aren't exactly in the dark. That's your own fun little hurdle, and I'm sure that if we ever did manage to jump it, you'd scurry off and find another you deem equally or even more implausible for science to cover in your lifetime, or at least the lifetime of your pointless arguments with me or anyone else.
I don't need you to acknowledge this on the board, but I want you to egage in the nanosecond worth of introspection it takes to realize that I know this just as I knew what your position was even though you're a shit mouthed troll who doesn't understand basic logical validity and can't express his own beliefs in a coherent manner..I still knew what you believed. You're fielding a genetic objection to the entire field of cog sci, and to all science, so you don't get to buddy up to any asserted fact of cog sci. You cannot require the truth of that which you seek to disprove. It is invalid, it is a stolen concept. The idea that we can observe the correlates of consciousness is an asserted truth of a position which you seek to disprove. That position, their position, must be true, for that notion to be true, and you cannot assert that it is while arguing that it is not. If you think that they have it wrong, and that science can't observe consciousness...then accept your own position, live with it, and don't dip into the position that you reject.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
