[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
Why start a new thread when its simply a rehash of the old one? Also, 
why don't you answer my question as to why you are curious?

[Arlo]
I did answer your question. The topic interests me, hence I am 
curious. Now, are you going to answer my questions? I've started a 
new thread because, now after four evasions, I wanted to give you a 
more focused forum in hopes this may prompt you to, at the very 
least, try to answer. After all, since you so often ridicule and 
deride others on this forum with such moronic glibs as "oops", I 
thought it'd be enlightening to see what you could offer instead.

So, here goes for a fifth time.

[Arlo previously]
Platt had, as is typical, derided the arguments made by Krimel (about 
the origins of consciousness) as "oops". Since Ham has already 
indicated his beliefs to be "poof", but has been wholly unable to 
articulate any answers to these simple questions, I thought that 
Platt, who also advocates a "Great Poof" theory should have a go at 
them. After three posts of evasion (thread was under What is SOM?), I 
thought I pull this into a new thread to, to give Platt (or Ham) a 
more noticeable forum to consider these questions.

I am also adding to this the question about the evolution of 
consciousness. But first, the thread Platt has (so far) been wholly 
unable to answer. Hopefully his next post to this will be answers to 
these questions.

[Arlo had asked]
First, I assume you'd agree that at some point in the far, far 
distant past, some pre-pre-primate of man lacked the sophistication 
in consciousness/awareness that "man" possesses. If you disagree 
here, let me know.

If we accept the above premise, then something had to change, some 
event or something that occurred, some change in something, that can 
account for the appearance of something where it did not exist before. No?

I've been vocal about my view on social participation (an unintended 
consequence of neurological evolution) being this "change". 
Physiologists may point to simply the neurobiological changes in 
themselves that account for the appearance of human consciousness. 
Both of these views you characterize (slyly) as "oops". I've argued 
that these are not "oops" but "aha's!", moments where Quality latched 
onto the unexpected formations that appeared due to genetic changes.

So I ask you, Platt, "what changed?" You disavow both physiological 
and sociological theories. I know that. So what do you offer instead? 
The only thing I could glean from Ham's responses is a sort of Divine 
Intervention, a great "Abracadabra!" or "Poof!" where "on high" 
(Ham's words) suddenly poofed consciousness into existence.

What do you offer instead of these? Although you run from the word, 
the only thing you have ever offered in the past is "Great Poof" a la 
Ham of some "Qualigod". Now tell me, if not "oops" or "aha!" or 
"poof", then what?

[Arlo adds a new question to Platt]
Is it your opinion, along with Ham, that "consciousness" in man has 
evolved over historic time, from "genus to species" (as Ham said), 
from the earliest primates with this consciousness to modern man? Or 
did "consciousness" appear fully-formed and fully-evolved in those 
early primates?