Is God a logical contradiction?

[John 6IX Breezy]

What exactly is the issue with your livestream though, that it dismantles all of science? And if I thought science couldn't observe consciousness I just wasted all my money studying cognitive science. But even if it couldn't, what's the problem?

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't have any problem with a livestream of subjective experience. If you ask me, I think it can be done. We grunt at each other and already accomplish a hell of alot of transfer. There's probably a better way than grunting.

I simply don't require one in order to state, as cog sci has stated in consensus, that there is every reason to believe and no reason not to believe that consciousness is present in this or that animal. That the subject being studied has access to the contents of their own livestream, even if I don't have that same access.

Anything else you'd accept as an observation of consciousness, yet?

If you didn't think that science couldn't observe consciousness.....then why the fuck did you say exactly that? Yes, if you really thought exactly what you said, then you wasted your money. Did you waste your money? Jesus christ man, the fact that you said that is the only reason that your statement was a stolen concept. You might have wasted your money either way.......

You're certainly wasting our time, if you'd like to go back and revise your explicitly stated position, now..particularly in that way.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If I've required a livestream quote me. But even if it is the only way to observe consciousness, how does that produce a stolen concept?

[The Grand Nudger]

Still waiting to hear what else would suffice. We've both agreed that a livestream would satisfy.

FWIW, I don't think that you're going to be able to come up with anything else that's consistent with your insistence of consciousness itself, or "what it's like to be", which is, very transparently, a euphemism for a livestream of subjective experience. I understand the position, and can command that position and it's semantics to shit on any other thing you might try to float. That's what the position is good at. Posturing, denial, lol. Heads I'm right, tails you're wrong.

Imma pump the brakes here, though. Why did you state that science cannot observe consciousness, if that's not what you believe? That statement has always been the problem, of a stolen concept, which is what I've been explaining to you for what seems like forever. It's not on account of being right or wrong about either side of the self refuting proposition you offered, it's the simple fact of combining the two that created the issue. Oil and water man.

[John 6IX Breezy]

So why'd you bring up the livestream then and rant about stolen concepts if it's not an issue?

I don't believe I've ever said science cannot observe consciousness, you made that up. Maybe it can't, maybe it will, but it currently can't.

[The Grand Nudger]

John.....John, John, John. Bizarre and easily disproven claims. You just repeated it again. Right there, directly, no need to dig up any old posts, because you just said, and I refuse to quote it since it's sitting right up there above these remarks.. that you think that science can't observe consciousness.

Now, is there anything other than a livestream of subjective experience that you would accept? Have you come up with anything else, yet, or did I nail it?

[Abaddon_ire]

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?

Wait. So you are saying that if we had the technology to directly read a memory of an image from somebodies brain as they remember it in real time, then the debate would be over?

What makes you believe that we will never achieve such technology?

[John 6IX Breezy]

You just repeated it again. Right there, directly, no need to dig up any old posts, because you just said, and I refuse to quote it since it's sitting right up there above these remarks.. that you think that science can't observe consciousness.

If you say science can't currently do it, I agree. But if you just say science can't, then you've given the sentence a different meaning, and made it up.

My exact quote was: "You can observe the neural correlates of consciousness and the behavioral correlates of consciousness, but not consciousness itself...".

Notice there's no mention of what science can or can't do, only what we can or can't do.

[Abaddon_ire]

You just repeated it again.  Right there, directly, no need to dig up any old posts, because you just said, and I refuse to quote it since it's sitting right up there above these remarks.. that you think that science can't observe consciousness.

If you say science can't currently do it, I agree. But if you just say science can't, then you've given the sentence a different meaning, and made it up.

My exact quote was: "You can observe the neural correlates of consciousness and the behavioral correlates of consciousness, but not consciousness itself...".

Notice there's no mention of what science can or can't do, only what we can or can't do.

ORLY? Could you answer my question then? Or does it scare you?

[John 6IX Breezy]

Your question? I have no beliefs about whether we'll achieve such technology. I hope we do.