Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You need to observe it to know it is present.

What's the big revelation here? Were you not aware researchers are talking about subjective experience when they talk about consciousness?

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no big revelation, as noted, I've never actually been unclear on what it is you believe, or why. I have had this conversation many, many times.

You have a philosophic objection to science which proceeds from ideological positions that consider consciousness to be irreducible. Only the livestream of subjective experience is an observation of consciousness. That's okay. You're allowed. You may even be right. The trouble is and has always been that in expressing your position you asserted, and thus require, the truth of the very thing you intended to disprove.

A stolen concept.

MA has noted that you selectively employ this objection. I've been able to get you to do the same multiple times. You're still not objecting to the voltmeter or the thermometer. You're scraping for a way to reject observations of consciousness and retain the voltmeter and the thermometer...both, in that case..stolen concepts.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I've never said consciousness is irreducible, although there are cognitive scientists that do. I have no objections to science either.

Are you sure you're not unclear? It sounds to me like you are.

[The Grand Nudger]

You just finished telling me that I had it right. Who should I believe? You right now, or that lying fucker from just a post ago?

Jesus christ ,man, is it impossible to say "Cool, never heard of that, that's why I had to have other people explain it to me, now I know not to do it"....? Why? I asked you this way way back in ye olden times. We both know that there's a why, and you decided to bullshit me and the entire board about that, too. Bizarre and easily disproven claims.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Cognitive scientists tend to define consciousness as subjective experience. If that's not a revelation to you, what's changed here?

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure do, and when cognitive scientists say that they're measuring and observing consciousness in some animal..and they do, this is the scientific consensus that exists, which you know exists, which you simply disagree with, they are not claiming to be able to livestream subjective experience. It's a non starter as an objection or as a bar for observation - but you're certainly free to believe in it to your hearts content. You may even be right.

It's only important, with respect to stolen concepts, that if you do believe that science is incapable of making these observations, that you don't assert and thus require the truth that science is capable of making these observations. You do not think that science observes the correlates of consciousness. You think that science assumes consciousness, observes behavior and brain activity, and then assumes that these -are- the correlates of consciousness. You've explicitly said as much.


You..just...stepped...in...shit. How many different ways and times can this be explained to you? It's not about you being right or wrong, but about you expressing your position in a coherent way. Validity, not soundness. Phrasing, not truth.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Again, observation in science means measurement. Is a livestream a measurement?

[The Grand Nudger]

You tell me. Whatever you tell me, you cannot then assert and thus require the truth of what you would attempt to disprove.

That would be a stolen concept.

It would be a stolen concept even if your conclusion were, in a factual sense, true. Validity, not soundness. Phrasing, not truth.

[John 6IX Breezy]

I suppose a livestream could function as a type of qualitative measure? Such imaging technology would definitively settle the debate. But if you're saying I think a livestream is the only way to measure subjective experience, you're making things up. And even if it were the only way to measure it, how is that an objection to science?

[The Grand Nudger]

Feel free to suggest something else that you would accept as an observation of consciousness.

-and while you're thinkering real hard about that - understand that it has absolutely no bearing on whether or not you employed a stolen concept..which you emphatically and demonstrably and repeatedly have.

You either can't talk good, or you can't make up your mind about shit. My money is on the rosie perez theory of your craven performance over these 40 or so pages. I think that you've definitely made your mind up, and struggle to express what you believe in coherent statements. This will likely improve with time and practice, and this conversation could be one locus of that improvement. If you'll let it be, if you'll just allow yourself to be right without strange and unnecessary invocations of a body of facts you simply don't believe to be facts, and seek to disprove.

There will be collateral damage. OFC...but oh well. You really do believe that science can't observe consciousness, right? Whatever collateral comes of that can only be the consistent application of what you actually believe. Just like there's collateral in my being a gnostic atheist - I can't coherently refer to the divine providence required for you to tie your shoes, because that would require the truth of what I seek to disprove. That's a shame..because there really does have to be something to explain how you manage to tie your shoes. Ya dumb.