[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> [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?

And I ask again, why ask someone you consider a moron anything?

> 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?