[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Arlo Bensinger]

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

[Arlo]
I'd like answers because you continually deride 
others with moronic glibs such as "oops". Since 
you find it so easy to ridicule others, I wanted 
to see what you could possibly offer instead. 
You've now answered this, "nothing". You allude 
to a "Great Poof", but seem unwilling to talk 
about it directly, possibly because you see how 
absurd it is. If I am wrong here, then please, by 
all means, actually answer my questions below and prove me wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand why you and 
Ham are both incapable and unwilling to deal with 
these questions. And I think that's now evident 
for everyone to see (if it wasn't already). 
Phaedrus encountered the same thing in Chicago 
with the Chairman. "He shouldn't have cut it off, 
Phædrus thinks to himself. Were he a real 
Truth-seeker and not a propagandist for a 
particular point of view he would not. He might learn something." (ZMM).

Your ongoing evasions point to which you are (and 
Ham as well). But I am always happy to be proven 
wrong. Here is now a sixth attempt at getting some answers.

[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?