[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> 
> > [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

SA:

What "blatant lies" do you think I have perpetrated?

Thanks.
Platt