Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

To think cancer is to cigarettes what temperature is to thermometers is so outlandish that I'm not going to bother correcting it.

To your second point, however, getting what consciousness bit right?

[The Grand Nudger]

Would it be accurate to state that, for you, an observation of consciousness would have to be an observation of "what it's like to be" - something that you think science (or humans et al) can't (either now..or who knows, forever) do. Would it be accurate to say that this informs your position on the state and limitations of cognitive science? On the statement you made, that we cannot observe consciousness.

With respect..not for you, but for cog sci- They don't insist that cancer is to cigarettes, they insist that cancer, and blackened lungs, and hacking and coughing, and a pack of fucking reds on the night stand..is to cigarettes..... I think you know as much, and I don't think that another bizarre and easily disprovable statement benefits you or your position..which doesn't require it...in any way.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Yes, consciousness meaning subjective experience, not wakefulness or alertness. So long as observation is the scientific sense.

Not sure what you mean if this informs the limits of cognitive science.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is the statement that you made, that science cannot observe consciousness, informed by the notion that science is not observing consciousness unless it's observing "what it's like to be"?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I prefer the term subjective experience.

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, fine, and would this be an accurate assesment?

[John 6IX Breezy]

It sounds correct on the surface. Science is not observing consciousness unless it is observing subjective experience.

[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.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Livestream the contents of consciousness? Did I not caution you to use observation in the scientific sense?

[The Grand Nudger]

You can caution me any way you like...but is that or is that not what the subject knows that the researcher doesn't, what the cats knows that the researcher doesn't?

It is your requirement. Being able to say -that- consciousness is present is not enough, for you. You need -what it's like to be-, the contents of the subjective experience. OFC, researchers have some of that, too....but it's not as if you're going to stick to any gun that doesn't help you to continue bickering with me....huh.