[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[SA]
Well, I didn't use "blatant lies".

[Arlo]
I did. After at least six (on my last count) times of answering the same
questions I've been asking you and Ham, seeing nothing but evasion after
evasion, this morning Platt wrote "Arlo can't even answer a few simple, direct
questions." Perhaps Platt would care to produce one question I have not
answered?

[SA]
I said "deceive", but maybe their both mayapples.  I think the point I was
making was Arlo asked you questions and you didn't answer them, and those
questions are based on your 'evolve', 'need for an origin', and 'intention' 
comments. 

[Arlo]
Beyond this, Arlo asked these questions because he was tired of seeing the same
old moronically glib "oops" used to deride people who espouse any view
different than whatever one he holds. "Oops oops oops", yeah, its smug and
ridiculous. But what does Platt, who loves to deride others, offer instead?
Hence my questions. And hence the only answer he can only allude to (since he
seems incapable or unwilling to be honest), "Abracadabra! Poof! of Qualigod".

[SA]
If you say these events happen, but don't provide an answer - without even an
'I don't know' comment, then what are you holding back?  Thus, why I grouped my
answer with 'deception', 'hiding', or 'learning something'/'in transition'.

[Arlo]
He is holding back because he is not here for honest dialogue, SA. As Pirsig
said of the Chairman, he is not a Truth-Seeker but a propagandist for a
particular ideology. He knows the absurdity of his claims, he knows they are a
theist revision, but he won't be honest about that because then he loses the
ability to act like he supports the MOQ. At the very least, Ham is honest in
his opposition to the MOQ, even if he too is incapable to defend his absurd
claims.

[SA]
>From my perspective, it's mainly been Ham, with his "consciousness evolves"
comment and then his blatant disregard to comment upon this quote of his.  He
probably doesn't even know what his own words mean.  It's his track record. 
His 'mo'.

[Arlo]
Ham and Platt share this same theist "Qualigod/Essigod" view. So the parallel
in questioning is natural. There was one that preempted this one about
evolution, and that is "what changed?" I've answered this several times, and
each time I get "no no no, stupid reductionist Arlo". Fine, I said, if I am
wrong, if the physiologists are wrong, then what is right? What, according to
the Qualigod view, changed during the timeline that left "no consciousness" on
one side and "consciousness" on the other. My view was assailed as "oops". As
moronic as that is, I don't care, but then I asked "what do YOU think?" Both
have been unable to answer, as their only answer "Qualigod poofed it into the
timeline" reveals not only their theism, but their inability to even articulate
a decent theistic proposal. In the end, all that's left is a sad dishonesty and
use of lies that really should be something they reflect on in quiet. You see,
I too, SA, have hopes that somewhere inside there is something that would be
ashamed at the chicanery they perpetrate here. But I am a cynic, and you appear
to have more hope than I.