[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Heather Perella]

> [SA previously]
> 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.

SA:  And statistically I always agree with you.  I say statistically, because I may have disagreed with you somewhere along the line, but I can't remember when, thus, it is insignificant on the larger scale it would seem.

Arlo:
> It's been Platt who's preferred to reduce what he 
> disagrees with to glib remarks such as "oops".

SA:  I know.  Now, maybe if Platt would say "I don't know" more often, as he has in a recent post to Ron, it would make more sense as to where he is coming from.  I heard this quote last night about cooking.  To paraphrase, some people like their cooking done with submission, others like to allow the natural flavor of the food to be enhanced.  I like the latter in life.

Arlo: 
> 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:  true, and they haven't been able to discuss their statements.



> [SA previously]
> 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.

SA:  I find the river to be flowing in a certain direction.

Arlo:
> And, a million years ago, it was 
> unknown where rivers would be, or what form they 
> would take.

SA:  I agree.

Arlo:
> The river you see as you walk is the 
> unintended consequence of the combinations of all 
> factors in its environment.

SA:  Yeap.  That's why intention is too limiting.  Also though, the river tends to go where the hills are guiding them, so, unintended is too limiting for me.  I guess it depends on what one means by "intend".  Intend means for me, guidance and structure is involved.  Unintended means, no guidance and no structure.  Hills and a river are a bit of both.  What do we call this both?  How can we describe this both without the understanding breaking down into old habits, old traditional ways of thinking?  Well, we're doing it right now.

Arlo:
> Had one quake altered 
> the landscape differently, the river would have 
> emerged differently (or maybe not at all).

SA:  Around the last ice age, the Allegheny River flowed north near where the Beaver River is, if I remember correctly.

Arlo:
> 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?

SA:  The intention, for me, is in the direction the asteroid was going and where it hit, and what happened.  The structural aspect that delineates an occurrence set by a projectory.  I'm not focused on it had to happen this way.

Arlo:
> Did that asteroid intend to bring about the era of the 
> mammal? If not an "Intender", then what
> "intended" to make consciousness?

SA:  As said, the regression in ones thinking, the bringing up of an "intender", is to focus in a certain way about what is meant.  Since I'm saying both pure intention is too limiting and pure unintention is too limiting, then I must be talking about something else, correct?

 
> [SA previously]
> 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.

SA:  yeah, it's tyrannical.

 
> [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. :-)

SA:  I don't know "why" he does it, other than to deceive, but deceive limits the discussion.  Maybe he's trying to hide something or is in the middle of learning something but doesn't know how to explain this transition.?


SA