Is God a logical contradiction?

[Abaddon_ire]

Is this the preprint awaiting peer-review which you are referencing: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/...7.full.pdf

No. And I am unwilling to assist your flailing around in a sea of cluelessness.

I would rather watch you drown in your own ignorance.

This entire thread started as people willing to help your understanding, providing copious links to peer reviewed science and so forth.

But it very quickly became clear that you would dismiss everything that did not lead to "gawd".

As your holey babble says, you reap what you sow.

This is still not my, or anyone else's problem. It is yours and yours alone. 

All anyone can do here is offer you some understanding. We cannot force you to take it, buy it or anything of that nature. If you are perfectly happy in your pit of religious ignorance, nobody can stop you.

[John 6IX Breezy]

If that's your position you're welcome you have it; I'll be here if you ever want to discuss the preprint.

[Abaddon_ire]

Cite your reference.

And hold on just a moment, You want me to cite a reference for research that has been around for years? And you claim to expertise in cognitive science? 

This is your claimed metier and you ask me for citations? This is old hat, Surely you should know this stuff already?

Surely you are not telling porky pies about your expertise? Tell us it ain't so.

Now, cars on table. I am a graduate engineer with an alphabet soup after my name. I earned those the hard way.

I am not any kind of expert in cog-sci. Interested amateur I suppose.

But somehow, I know the cutting edge of a field not my own, yet you do not? Do you think that is vaguely credible. Of course not. 

I may not have expertise in cog-sci, but I do have expertise in separating the real from the BS.

You can foxtrot right oscar.

---

If that's your position you're welcome you have it; I'll be here if you ever want to discuss the preprint.

Nice. Put your size twelve in it again.

I spent over a decade in the print industry. Still do for select customers. You clearly have no clue what a "preprint" is, nor have I at any point suggested that I intended to write a book.

You simply cannot help making a sack of crap up, can you?

Just like your imaginary "gawd".

[John 6IX Breezy]

I have heard of similar concepts. For example, in his book, Daniel Levitin makes mention of studies which scan the auditory cortex.

Again, we can discuss it when you cite your reference.

[Abaddon_ire]

I have heard of similar concepts. For example, in his book, Daniel Levitin makes mention of studies which scan the auditory cortex.

Again, we can discuss it when you cite your reference.

And you can foxtrot right oscar. Your inability to research is your problem, not mine. your lack of understanding is your problem, not mine. Ask yourself why it might be that while all of us can rather easily look this up, somehow, you are too thick to do so.

I have no sympathy for your affliction, whatever it is. You could get out, but you don't seem to even rise to the desire to do so. Fine. Wallow in ignorance. Try not to reject the lifebelt  thrown.

You have been provided with sufficient information to find what you seek. Turns out that you are not interested. Not anyone's problem but yours. 

Having spent some time as an educator, I know when to cut losses.

[John 6IX Breezy]

Lol I did exactly as you told me. The image search led me to that link, but you said it wasn't it.

Don't worry, it'll be fun. We'll take things slowly whenever you want to talk about the paper. I look forward to your reference.

[Abaddon_ire]

Lol I did exactly as you told me. The image search led me to that link, but you said it wasn't it.

Don't worry, it'll be fun. We'll take things slowly whenever you want to talk about the paper. I look forward to your reference.

Sorry, but no reference for you.

While I have many, and I would normally share such freely, for you I will not extend any such courtesy.

You have demonstrated that you are too lazy to even google anything, need to be spoon fed everything and either do not read or do not understand any references provided.

You have already established that track record.

No soup for you.

[John 6IX Breezy]

That's ok; let me go ahead and give you some tools that may help you in your research journey. These may or may not apply to your reference.

1. There's a 1:1 correspondence from the retina, through the thalamus, and back to the visual cortex. The term used is the retinotopic map. In other words, because of this causal chain from the retina to the cortex, the retina is fully represented in the cortex. Because of this, any brain scan of this area will not actually be observing consciousness, it's just observing the flow of information from the retina. The parts of the visual system that seem to correlate most with visual consciousness are further upstream, either in the ventral stream or the dorsal stream. From what I remember, I think studies with binocular rivalry placed the correlation most heavily in the IT region of the ventral stream. So when you read through your reference look for these areas. Are they scanning the visual cortex, V1, or are they scanning further upstream.

2. There's a double dissociation between perception and imagery. In other words, seeing something vs. imagining something. One paper that showed up in my attempt to Google your reference made mention of imagery. Just keep in mind these are not the same thing, and shouldn't be localized in the same region, though they may share some overlap. So check if the researcher makes mention of that, and tells you what region they're scanning for each task.

That's pretty much it. Good luck!

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

-As predicted, and it didn't even take a lifetime. It took a day.

You've done it again, you don't accept your own bar for observation. You asserted it would be as much, and then concluded that it was not. Endlessly spiraling stolen concepts.

None of them are important to you, and you do not believe in any of them - no more so than you believe in any of the contents above, which you would abandon as quickly as you've abandoned any other comment or assertion or body of facts thusfar. I do appreciate that you do not feel this way - but the first and most competent lies we tell are the ones we tell ourselves.

[Abaddon_ire]

That's ok; let me go ahead and give you some tools that may help you in your research journey. These may or may not apply to your reference.

1. There's a 1:1 correspondence from the retina, through the thalamus, and back to the visual cortex. The term used is the retinotopic map. In other words, because of this causal chain from the retina to the cortex, the retina is fully represented in the cortex. Because of this, any brain scan of this area will not actually be observing consciousness, it's just observing the flow of information from the retina. The parts of the visual system that seem to correlate most with visual consciousness are further upstream, either in the ventral stream or the dorsal stream. From what I remember, I think studies with binocular rivalry placed the correlation most heavily in the IT region of the ventral stream. So when you read through your reference look for these areas. Are they scanning the visual cortex, V1, or are they scanning further upstream.

2. There's a double dissociation between perception and imagery. In other words, seeing something vs. imagining something. One paper that showed up in my attempt to Google your reference made mention of imagery. Just keep in mind these are not the same thing, and shouldn't be localized in the same region, though they may share some overlap. So check if the researcher makes mention of that, and tells you what region they're scanning for each task.

That's pretty much it. Good luck!

You got one thing right. That is pretty much it. You prefer to wallow in a pit of superstitious ignorance. Good luck with that. I refuse to join you.