[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Arlo Bensinger]

[SA]
As long as you understand I wasn't saying we 
should get rid of "oops" or "aha" or ge-wiz or 
lalala.  I was trying to encourage a further 
description in what these concepts mean, which it 
looks like you may have done further on in this post.  Good.

[Arlo]
I've done further many times in the past. It's 
been Platt who's preferred to reduce what he 
disagrees with to glib remarks such as "oops". 
Indeed, "Aha!" as only conceived in response to 
Platt's absurd reductions (by Krimel, if I 
recall) as a way of saying, "if you want to 
resort to simplistic monosyllabic caricatures 
than "aha!" is more accurate than "oops"". And, 
if you read the thread here, you'll see that I 
have been doing nothing but calling for Platt and 
Ham to explain their "abracadabra! poof!" views.

[SA]
Ok, which Platt seems to suggest in the other 
thread is that people need some kind of authority 
that tells them or convinces them to be good or 
as he said to paraphrase, "change their 
attitudes".  Something bigger than them.  I don't know.

[Arlo]
Sure, from The Power of Nightmares. "Strauss 
believed that the liberal idea of individual 
freedom led people to question everything—all 
values, all moral truths. Instead, people were 
led by their own selfish desires. And this 
threatened to tear apart the shared values which 
held society together. But there was a way to 
stop this, Strauss believed. It was for 
politicians to assert powerful and inspiring 
myths that everyone could believe in. They might 
not be true, but they were necessary illusions. 
One of these was religion; the other was the myth of the nation." (BBC)

[SA]
I find a "Great Plan" too limiting.  I find 
"unintended consequence" too limiting.  Intention 
can connote a 'Intender', but I don't think that 
way.  Intention to me is the hills guiding the 
Allegheny River in a certain direction, but as 
geography shifts, the direction can shift.

[Arlo]
In my view, the hills do not intend for the river 
to flow in any direction. Certainly, the river 
flows as it does in response to its environment, 
of which the hills are one part. But where the 
river runs, and what shape the river takes, is 
unintended. And, a million years ago, it was 
unknown where rivers would be, or what form they 
would take. The river you see as you walk is the 
unintended consequence of the combinations of all 
factors in its environment. Had one quake altered 
the landscape differently, the river would have 
emerged differently (or maybe not at all). Take a 
more active example, the event (asteroid, 
volcano, whatever) that caused the extinction of 
the dinosaurs. Did that asteroid (or whatever) 
intend to destroy the dinosaurs? Did that 
asteroid intend to bring about the era of the 
mammal? If not an "Intender", then what "intended" to make consciousness?

[SA]
Ham doesn't know how to answer a lot of 
questions, even about what he says.  That's Ham & 
Swiss Cheese for ya.  I don't know would be a good enough answer for me.

[Arlo]
I gave Ham this out, but he can't say this 
because this would preclude him from saying 
"you're wrong" to people who do espouse a view he can't ideologically stomach.

[Arlo had asked]
Ask yourself, SA, why do you think Platt feels he 
must resort to such blatant lies to mask his 
inability to answer these questions?

[SA]
I don't know.

[Arlo]
I think you're too kind. :-)