Is God a logical contradiction?

[The Grand Nudger]

Cool story.....because the boards, like facts, don't exist.

Because I didn't already tell you, just past two posts ago, where to find what you wanted. Because you don't feel compelled to stick with any body of facts that you invoke, even the facts of the shit you decide to type with your own hands.

No amount of providing you with what you ask for will lead to anything other than you claiming to have never received it. It's become clear that stolen concepts are the least of your worries.

Jesus christ.....

[John 6IX Breezy]

All I want is a quote showing I've objected to reduction, and a reference showing cognitive science is logically dependant on reduction. That's it.

These are the building blocks of your argument and you have nothing?

[The Grand Nudger]

You misunderstand. I don't have an argument, and these are not things that I depend on, but that your own assertions depend on. That's why it's a stolen concept. If you include the products of cognitive science through reduction as propositions in any premises or assertions of your own, then you require their truth. This gives them genetic validity. You cannot rely on the truth of something you are simultaneously trying to disprove. The genetic validity of related facts cannot be accepted in the case of one but not the other.

This was the problem you ran into with MA, which is the same problem - the fallacy of a stolen concept. He explained to you that it was pointless to argue over the contents of cog sci with him. He was right. You either accept that the body of facts exists, and accept what that body of facts establishes..or you don't.

[John 6IX Breezy]

You said: "You have a fundamental objection to reductionism."

Either you have a quote or you made this up; there's no misunderstanding.

[The Grand Nudger]

Continuing along with this fun discussion of all the ways that you've employed a stolen concept, we can return to your post 231. Wherein you state

You can observe the neural correlates of consciousness and the behavioral correlates of consciousness, but not consciousness itself and/or its accompanying mental states, thoughts, etc.

This, I'd contend, is closer to what and why you actually believe what you do than any throwaway comment you've made about the content of cog sci. Unfortunately, you accept and assert scientific observation in the premise, requiring the genetic validity of that observation, as you explicitly conclude that such observation cannot be done. Again requiring the truth of that which you seek to disprove.

We used to have a lovely poster named Jormungandr who came up with a clever way to explain to people who did this why it was a logical nonstarter. We use a tool called a voltmeter to measure potential differences between two points in a circuit. This determines it's voltage. When we do this, we do not contend that we have not actually observed voltage, on account of how we've watched a needle swing on a face of an instrument. If you accept the genetic validity of such observations..and you must, you included them as assertions of fact in your premise, then you cannot then object to the same.

It is only because you framed your objection this way that it's invalid. If we can't observe consciousness, then we can't observe it's neural or behavioral correlates, either. If we can't observe voltage, then we can't make statements of fact based on the position of the needle of the voltmeter.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Behavioural correlates of consciousness and reportability: Traditionally, we assess consciousness by observing behaviour. If someone is awake and acts meaningfully, we have little doubt he is conscious […] But behaviour can be misleading: a person may walk and speak in her sleep, yet it is quite dubious whether she is experiencing anything.

Neural correlates of consciousness: The neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) have been defined as the minimal neural mechanisms that are jointly sufficient for any one conscious percept, thought or memory, under constant background conditions […] However, there is no consensus on whether any of these signs can be treated as reliable 'signatures' of consciousness (Tononi and Koch, 2015, p. 2).

The above quotation was published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. If you are unfamiliar with the journal, it is the oldest and arguably most prestigious scientific journal in existence, having published notable scientists from Isaac Newton to Stephen Hawking. Not that it matters; I just wanted to show off that I know my stuff lol. My arguments are built on a better foundation than google searches and Wikipedia articles.

That said, I've mentioned: "Such correlations are possible for humans because we have language, and we can communicate (presumably) our consciousness to others, and correlate it with behavior or neural activity." You can also experience your own consciousness despite not being able to observe consciousness and/or its accompanying mental states in others. Your voltage analogy doesn't apply.

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

[The Grand Nudger]

Great, but if you'd like to refer to some facts of b, as in the above..then you're stuck with the body of facts of b.

I keep telling you that the issue of a stolen concept is not a disagreement on the contents of b. I don't know why you think that you're having that argument. No more than MA could understand why you would caution him about fmri's.

You are, again, arguing against the genetic validity of scientific observation. That's fine. Like I said, you might be right. Maybe we can't observe consciousness. If so, we cannot observe it's correlates, either. No more than we can observe voltage or it's correlates.

You just cant express that validly by referring to asserted facts of scientific observation. If you want to field that objection, then you'll have to keep science entirely out of your mouth. A valid objection, by reference to it's own assertions, for you...would be that we cannot observe consciousness, full stop. If we could observe it's correlates, then we could observe something about consciousness. The first half of your comment is self refuting with respect to the very last utterance. Get rid of the first half..and no problem...but no science, either. It's always your call. That's why they call it a stolen concept. Some thing from a directly contradictory position is seen to have value, and on the basis of this, an advocate for the other half of that contradictory position attempts to appropriate it for their own - to the detriment of the validity of their position.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Quote me if I've argued against the genetic validity of scientific observation. I'll wait.

[The Grand Nudger]

Already have....and obviously your repeated demands for quotes don't amount to anything when they're met. Either you understand why this form is invalid, or you don't.

I'll repeat...for the umpteenth time..that you can restate your objections in a valid form. This is a case of being pointlessly stubborn and intentionally obtuse - for no reason.

[John 6IX Breezy]

So another made up claim that you can't substantiate? I should compile these lol.