[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Christoffer Ivarsson]

I don't know If you'll agree with me, but from where I'm sitting it seems 
plausible that consciousness the way it is identified (witch is rather 
badly) now had to develop from the social level and into the intellectual 
level. If we look at the nature of the social level it is in essence the 
transcendence of biological values of a collective - and this/these 
collective/s did become more then just a bunch of biological patterns 
cooperating to gain High Quality Biological rewards - even though that was 
also the case: it became something more, something with an agenda of it's 
own, and I believe the most important thing that facilitated this was the 
development of the consciousness on a larger scale. Because with the forming 
of an intricate social patterns each part of  this collective had to know it's 
specific functions in it, and thus become a whole lot more self-aware. 
Individuality can of course only exist if there is such a thing as a 
collective that facilitates the creation of it.

I also believe that we can then imagine how the intellectual level started 
developing from this point - based as it must be on the social level, and in 
particular this self-awareness that the social level provided. Soon enough 
the Drive For Knowledge was borne using individuality within the collective 
as it's vessel.

Something like that anyway. I'll need to look this over more carefully I 
feel. But What do you say?

//Chris


> [Arlo begins a new thread]
> 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?