[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

Why does the topic interest you?  Why would you want answers from
someone you describe as a moron?

> 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?
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/