[MD] Consciousness a la Platt/Ham

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt [with consolations to Arlo] --


Since Arlo can't understand consciousness as anything but 
inorganic-biological-social patterns, as defined by Pirsig, he wants to turn 
philosophy into anthropology.  I've repeatedly told him that philosophy - 
especially metaphysics - is not a study of genetics, social development, or 
physiological evolution, suggesting that he consult the anthropology texts 
for the information he demands.

I've also made it quite clear that I have no quarrel with Darwin's theory of 
natural selection or the evolution of the species, provided that such 
constructs are understood to be based on experiential (objective) evidence. 
However, scientific models are not ontologies.  Anthropologists and 
neuro-scientists can only account for data obtained from objective phenomena 
that conform to natural laws and can be repeatably demonstrated.  As it 
happens, consciousness is not objective.  It can't be genetically linked or 
historically dated.  So Arlo is disappointed that, despite his insistence, 
we're not willing to discuss subjective consciousness as an objective 
phenomenon.

Arlo's "consciousness" is a physiological finction, like bipedality, 
muscular coordination, or language skills.  He is apparently incapable of 
grasping the concept of awareness as the subjective self.  There is no 'I' 
for Arlo.  What he feels and thinks are only patterns of something external 
to him - something vaguely attributed to a "universal level" that can be 
broken down into organic, inorganic, and intellectual components.

I'm sorry that Arlo has no self-awareness.  It must be a boring and 
unsatisfying life, thinking up ideas and having feelings and desires that 
are not his but are only borrowed from the external world.  It's a shame 
that belief in anything that can't be quantified or localized is "Poof" to 
him.  But, then, nature isn't perfect.  Even Darwin acknowledged that not 
all members of a species evolve at the same rate.  Let's hope that Arlo's 
heirs overcome this gap and become "fully developed" self-aware individuals 
with the capacity to realize there is more to reality than patterns and 
levels of existence.

Warmest regards,
Ham



>> [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?