1. Logical arguments create nothing.
False. Logic when combined with the *will* creates a way. It is only true in a strictly limited sense to claim that logic alone creates nothing. Seductive reasoning for example is the most basic logic and underpins all evolutionary psychology for the creative argument.
"Mate with me and perpetuate our genes together."
(Seductive reasoning)
An argument designed to create conviction (belief) not necessary to logically prove (to know).
Persuasion
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Persuasion
The result is the cause; seduction and in the most sensual aspect procreative activity, the perpetuation of life (at least the very species specific *perception* of it).
2. A concept isn't reified just because one writes down a string of symbols on a piece of paper or word processor.
Agreed but how is this relevant?
3. Validity isn't soundness.
This is dependent on whether yo define validity in a subjective or objective manner. Soundness only reflects the logic of augment predicated on premises that are assumed *valid*.
4. "Consciousness is experience" is a useless tautology.
Perhaps but then why is the claim you make subject to a Bayesian falacy?
Consciousness may be experienced but not all that is experienced is conscious as the extensive and substantive analysis of precognitive stimuli demonstrates. You do possess a subconscious correct?
Are you fully cognizant of it at all times?
5. An ideal scientific description of consciousness doesn't need to demonstrate consciousness with its statements, just with applications of them.
Perception is sensual, not all experience is conscious again. The perception of spirit is not predicated on only a logical (or otherwise) understanding. This is the describing color to the blind argument. Does color have an objective reality?
Of course but does it also have a distinctly subjective reality?
Again the answer is yes and the problem is in distinguishing the two and their interrelatedness.
It is only important to validate perception if you possess the time and wherewithal to think about it. Most of the time it is about survival. You have attempted the path I charted. Perhaps I did not imply consciousness as much as conscience(ness).
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Conscience
I did attempt to address the idea of self and locate where it resides and upon that which it depends for existence. I only offer that it exists in a material sense within our mind, that is maintained by the brain, which is in turn maintained by the body. This can be demonstrated by a variety of empirical means objectively corroborated.
Now please attempt such a causal relationship and structured definition for a term like the soul?
