Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

How would you phrase it?

[The Grand Nudger]

In -any- way that doesn't assert the validity of what it simultaneously seeks to disprove. There are more ways to get this right than there are to get it wrong.

Had you simply left it at the assertion that we could not observe consciousness it wouldn't be a stolen concept.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Show me. Write it out.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure.....

We cannot observe consciousness.

......................? No stolen concept fallacy there.

[John 6IX Breezy]

No. That's a poor response to Peebo's comment on animals that "displayed/shown the behavior of altruism." So rewrite it again. The correlates of consciousness was important in my response, since altruism corresponds to it. Remember my references?

You said you would assume that my "entire position on consciousness and science is true;" that includes the behavioral and neural correlates of consciousness. So include them and fix the phrasing.

[The Grand Nudger]

If you insist on using the stolen concept fallacy I obviously can't remove the stolen concept fallacy from a version of your statements.

If your entire position contains a stolen concept fallacy, then so be it. Doesn't have to.

If you think that we can't observe consciousness, then you cannot simultaneously think that we observe the correlates of consciousness. You think that we can observe behavior.

Even more specifically, with reference to what the subject or the cat knows that the researcher doesn't..this is probably closer to what you would accept as an observation of consciousness. That's the bar you're flirting with. Seeing what the cat sees, experiencing what it experiences. Can't do that with me, either, though it does seem as though conscious contents are in some ways transferable, you've noted language, for example. Notice that nowhere do I refer to observing the correlates of consciousness, because the notion is incoherent with believing that we can't observe consciousness.

I don't find that particularly compelling, but at least it isn't a stolen concept. I don't need to experience being a cat to say that a cat has experiences. I kind of assume that the whole bit would be a huge jumble to me, just dumped into a cat brain..if I fit (which I doubt).....but that's not the subject of inquiry.

[John 6IX Breezy]

There you have it. Your issue isn't with the phrasing; that's just a cover. You have a personal disagreement with the methodology and terminology of the field.

[The Grand Nudger]

The issue of a stolen concept.....John, is phrasing. This is what I keep telling you. A stolen concept isn't -my- issue, it's an issue for any position that contains it.

[John 6IX Breezy]

The issue of a stolen concept, as the name would imply, is conceptual. The way in which concepts are expressed is their phrasing.

Your issue isn't with the phrasing, clearly, else you could fix it without destroying their underlying concepts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure, and some phrasing is valid, some is not. Again, a stolen concept isn't my issue, it's an issue, for any position which contains it. Stolen concepts reduce their contents to incoherence.