[MD] Consciousness a la Platt/Ham

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Ham]
Since Arlo can't understand consciousness as anything but..

[Arlo]
Ah yes, the masterful "Arlo is stupid" evasion. Here is the basics 
outlined simply, the full repost of my questions is also included.

1. You said "consciousness evolves" from "genus to species". This is 
YOUR claim. Isn't it?

2. I asked a simple question to this. IF this is the case, as you 
claim, HOW does it happen? HOW did successive generations of primates 
end up with "more evolved" consciousness?

3. You've denied biology as the answer. You've denied socialization 
as the answer. This evidences that you DO propose an answer of some 
sort, or else you'd say "I don't know, could be biology, could be 
sociology, we just don't know". But you insist these ARE NOT the 
answer. Fine. So I ask, WHAT IS?

Also.

1. You said that "consciousness" appears somewhere in the historic 
timeline, as there were at one point pre-pre-primates without it. 
This is YOUR claim. Isn't it?

2. I asked a simple question to this. IF this is the case, as you 
claim, then "what changed?" What happened that is different that 
resulted in consciousness appearing in the primate line?

3. You've denied biology as the answer. You've denied socialization 
as the answer. Again, this evidences that you DO propose an answer of 
some sort, one that you've only alluded to by saying "its a gift from 
on high", a Divine Intervention, an Abracadabra "poof there was 
consciousness". But you deny this. Fine I ask, then WHAT CHANGED?

How much more bloody simple can I make it. Who do you think you're 
fooling with your evasive rhetoric and puffed-up empty answers? Its 
philosophically appalling to do what you are doing, although as I 
said I can sadly understand it. I am just glad to have to the 
opportunity to shine some light of the absurd faux philosophy that 
you and Platt trumpet here. And the more you rely on deception and 
evasion to skirt these simple, logical questions to YOUR claims, the 
more you show this.

But I will give you, yet another, opportunity to answer. As I said, I 
know full well you can't. And I know full well will be another round 
of evasion. Its all you and Platt can do here, and that's sad.


[Arlo reposts]
Arlo would still like answers to these questions.

[Arlo asked Ham]
The mechanism by which consciousness evolves is....

[Ham]
...the individuation of 'being-aware' from the Sensibility/Otherness dichotomy.

[Arlo]
This makes no sense, and certainly is not an answer to the question. 
I'm not sure if you're deliberately obfuscating here to avoid an 
answer you know would be ridiculous, but it seems clear that you 
simply have no answer. Despite claims about what is NOT, you can 
offer nothing about what IS.

You said, quite clearly, "consciousness evolves from genus to 
species". That is, over generations consciousness evolves, successive 
generations of early man
had improved consciousnesses over their predecessors. This is YOUR 
claim. And yet, when asked a simple question about HOW this happens, 
you retreat into
smoke and evasion.

Physiologists would say that consciousness evolves because of genetic 
mutations and changes in the neurobiology of primates over time that 
are passed on
through DNA. Social theorists would say that consciousness evolves 
because socialization unleashed a collective unconscious that is 
added to with each successive generation an so primates assimilating 
this collective  will, with each passing generation, assimilate 
something greater. Both of these answers (which you deny) are 
straightforward answers to "how and why consciousness evolves, how 
and why it changes over time".

You deny these, and yet can offer no answer whatsoever (the 
jumblygook above is NOT an answer to this question) as to how your 
lauded "consciousness" becomes
greater/more evolved in subsequent generations of primates.

The ONLY answer I can draw from your posts is that "Essence" simply 
bestows upon subsequent generations of many "new and improved" models 
of consciousness
each generation. And even to this you seem incapable of speculating 
as to "why"? Why did "On High" give early pre-primates a very 
unsophisticated consciousness and yet give us moderns a much more 
sophisticated consciousness. Your answer, "as him", was amusing but 
another evasion.

[Arlo had asked]
What changed between early primates without consciousness and humans 
with consciousness is...

[Ham]
...the development of consciousness.

[Arlo]
Clever, but even a gradeschooler sees the circularity in that.

Again, YOUR claim was that early on in the evolutionary timeline 
there existed some distant ancestor of "man" that lacked 
consciousness, call him a pre-pre-primate. You claim also that at 
some point in the timeline consciousness appears.

I ask, again, what changed that prompted this appearance?

Physiologists would point to a specific genetic mutation (or 
several). Social theorists would, as I've said, point to a time when 
neural evolution led to the unintended consequence of shared 
attention which beget social symbolic activity.

You DENY both of these, but offer nothing, and I mean NOTHING as an 
alternative. The closest thing to an answer I could read from your 
posts was "Essence poofed consciousness into the timeline", a sort of 
Divine Intervention when "God" went "Abracadabra!" and suddenly there 
existed "consciousness". But, you deny this as well.

So I ask again, into this timeline spanning "no consciousness" among 
pre-pre-primates and "consciousess" among latter man, what changed 
that precipitated consciousness' appearance?

Your little jabs about my "inability to understand" are funny, but 
I'll be open to anyone else in this forum who can explain to me how 
what you give are "answers" to my questions.