Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I'm calling it your opinion out of respect for your intellect. Does my clap example contain a stolen concept?

[The Grand Nudger]

What kind of silly ass question is that. For something to be a stolen concept, it has to assert the truth of the thing it seeks to reject. As asserting that we can observe the correlates of consciousness -and- that we cannot observe consciousness does.

Let's not pretend to respect each other, or anything about each other. You've convinced me that you only manage to tie your shoes each morning through divine providence..and I'm a gnostic atheist.

Does that help you to spot and understand a stolen concept?

[John 6IX Breezy]

"For something to be a stolen concept, it has to assert the truth of the thing it seeks to reject. As asserting that we can observe the correlates of a clap -and- that we cannot observe the clap does."

I took what you just said verbatim and replaced consciousness with clap. So there's your answer to my analogy. That's all I need.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems that you've finally grocked it! I know, I know, disingenuous, I knew you understood the moment you ran the other direction with voltage.

Here's another fun one. We can observe catshit in the woods, but we can't observe cats.

( I can take this one waaaaaay down the rabbit hole if you like, lol )

[John 6IX Breezy]

You have a methodological disagreement with establishing correlations through reportability and cooperation, but the field doesn't. Like the curtain in the room, subjects have access to information that the researcher does not; reportability allows us to observe the correlates of consciousness, while consciousness itself lies unobserved within the subject.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can never observe a cat, in fact. You can observe the correlates of a cat, things like seeing a furry impression gifted to you by your sensory system and processed through many layers of revision...but you can't observe a cat.

Also...the cat knows things that you, the cat researcher, just don't.

Like I said, I'm certain that you're confusing being able to watch a show a person is watching, and knowing whether or not they're watching a show. You'd gag if you knew how many times this conversation has been had on the boards. That's "what the cat knows"..that you don't, or what the subject knows, that you don't. Here you are, deadset on having some argument with me about methodological disagreements, but that's not what makes something a stolen concept or rescues it from being one, either.

That would be asserting, and thus requiring, the validity of any methodology while simultaneously attempting to disprove it's validity. Or, you know, just not doing that, because you don't have to. You can still attempt to disprove that validity, you just need a valid preamble to replace the self refuting one, and you can even be right about it!

[John 6IX Breezy]

The furry impression gifted to us by our sensory system through many layers of revision, is what we call a cat; so your statement is backwards. Perhaps another day I can teach you how perception works. The focus is animal consciousness for the time being.

[The Grand Nudger]

And the observation of correlates -is- what we call temperature, or voltage...or.....

You can still attempt to disprove the validity of that..you just need a better preamble that doesn't assert it's validity. A stolen concept is flat out an issue of phrasing, and nothing else.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I wonder if the reason you're not understanding is because you've divorced the statements from their original contexts in a compulsory attempt to disagree.

Are you taking sentences written in the first-person point of view, either a researcher investigating a subjects or humans investigating animals, and treated them as third-person assertions?

The clap/curtain analogy is intended to show consciousness is being observed (experienced is a better word) by someone in the room, but not by the researcher on the other side of the curtain. Hence why communication allows us to assess the correlates.

But then again, whenever I've corrected you on this, you've said I'm bickering over contents (whatever that means) so who knows.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm taking -your- statement and showing -you- how -you- rendered it invalid through -your- choice of phrasing. That's how a stolen concept happens, those are the consequences of a stolen concept.

That discussion isn't even remotely a discussion about consciousness. Let's assume that your entire position on consciousness and science is true (whatever it is, it honestly doesn;t matter) and that my entire position on consciousness and science is false. Let's assume that.

The statement you made is still a stolen concept fallacy. Presumably, since we're assuming that your position is true, there is some valid way to express it, and no need to tie a stolen concept fallacy around it's neck like an albatross.