[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Platt]
A non answer. Why do you want "to see what I could offer instead" 
since you already consider me a moron?

[Arlo]
As I said, twice, because you ridicule and deride others who do 
provide thoughtful, articulate, reasoned answers. So I ask, what do 
you offer instead? Again, the answer is "nothing", short of an 
alluded to Great Poof of Qualigod (I suppose you'd agree with Ham 
that the reason consciousness appears to evolve over time has been 
that Qualigod simply updates the models each year prior to poofing it 
into humans?)

But here's yet another round at an answer, not that I expect one at 
this point, since you've show clearly your inability to answer. 
Thanks, by the way, for the opportunity to demonstrate once again the 
"Carousel of Faux Philosophy" for all to see. (Hey... prove me wrong! 
Answer my questions!!)

[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", the 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?