[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> [Platt]
> And I ask again, why ask someone you consider a moron anything?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Because, YOU deride OTHERS. What do YOU offer instead? But you've now
> answered
> this, you offer nothing but The Carousel of Faux Philosophy. I'll repeat
> my
> questions a seventh time, but I've proven my point. 

Again a non answer. Why do ask someone you consider a moron anything?
Why is your proving your point so important to you? 

 
> [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?
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/