Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Oh look.. you did say that:

"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."

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you understand why?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Because you weren't familiar with the literature, nor the methods scientists use to assess these correlates.

[The Grand Nudger]

Clearly not, then, and we're right back were we started. With you demonstrating that you still don't understand a stolen concept despite much effort being wasted on you.

Understanding a stolen concept is in no way shape or form an issue of understanding cognitive science or the contents of cognitive science. It's not an argument about the contents of cognitive science, either. It's the simple requirement of a valid form to any logical proposition or argument. You cannot assert and thus require the truth of what you would simultaneously seek to disprove.

Nothing even, to do with me, let alone what I do or don't know. It's you, your choice of statements, your call. Always has been, and it's always been simple to fix. We observe voltage by observing correlates, we observe temperature by observing correlates, we observe -everything- by observing correlates. You either think we can do this, or you think we can't, but you can't validly state both claims at once, let alone in the same sentence, as you did. Accepting that we can observe the correlates of consciousness saddles you with the genetic validity of those semantics and that method.

You don't want to be saddled with this, because, in truth, you do not actually believe it, and object to science having any ability to observe consciousness whatsoever. But the saddle, unfortunately, is very valuable. Keeps you from sounding like the feckless troll of a crank that you are. Or at least you think it does..... even though that hasn't quite worked out here on the boards. So you're going to lug it all the way to the grave, I suspect.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If we're in a room separated by a curtain, and the curtain prevents me from seeing you clap. Do you think it's possible to correlate the clap that you're making with the sound that I'm hearing, just by us communicating with each other?

Or do you think that unless I visually observe the clap I cannot assess that sound is a correlate of it?

[The Grand Nudger]

-to the end of days.

This argument above is pointless. A stolen concept arises not when two people have a disagreement over a body of facts, but when one person refers to and so requires the facts they seek to disprove. No matter what I think about the above, and no matter what you think about the above, that..is what a stolen concept is.

[John 6IX Breezy]

It does matter; there is no stolen concept unless you think the correlation is logically dependant on observing the visual clap.

[The Grand Nudger]

Again, the matter of a stolen concept has nothing to do with what anyone else thinks. It's an issue of how to formulate a coherent proposition.

You asserted that we could do something, and then concluded that we couldn't. Requiring the truth of what you simultaneously seek to disprove.

Dropping the assertion that we could do something eliminates the stolen concept, and is a more accurate description of what you actually believe...anyway. Understand?

[John 6IX Breezy]

In other words, to say the audible correlates of a clap are observable, but not the clap itself, is in your opinion a stolen concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

44 pages of conversation about something as simple as a stolen concept going over your head. I don't have an opinion of a stolen concept. A stolen concept -is- requiring the truth of what you simultaneously seek to disprove.