[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> 
> Platt:
> > Please jog my memory. When did I write "evolve,"
> 
> SA:  Didn't you say "consciousness changes" and you state "oops" is the
> answer?  I don't know if you used these words, exactly or not, but this is
> what the discussion was about.

No, I didn't say that. And if you are going to put quotes around words, it 
means you are quoting exactly what somebody said. 

> Platt:
> > "need for an origin" and
> > "intention."
> 
> SA:  Discussion was about?

See above. What discussion? Ham and Arlo had a discussion. Arlo then tried 
to drag me in after accusing Ham of not answering questions when he clearly 
did. Arlo just didn't like the answers. 

> Platt: 
> > Do you believe that anyone here is duty bound to answer
> > questions when he 
> > or she is described by the questioner as being a moron and
> > a liar?
> 
> SA:  Platt, this is getting old, don't you think?  This whole discussion? 
> I'm trying to focus on the questions he asked.  He did answer your
> questions.

I'm trying to focus you on what Arlo said about me.  

> SA previously: 
> > >      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'.
> 
> Platt: 
> > Without offering any evidence, you charge is ad hominem. 
> > I'm surprised, 
> > SA. It's not like you to be like Arlo. 
> 
> SA:  As I said to Ian in the Disagreement [MD], it depends on what you
> mean by ad hominem, for I don't see anything ad hominem about what I said,
> not at all.  Enlighten me.

>From Pirsig: Note 140, LC:

"To say that a comment is "stupid" is to imply that the person who makes it 
is stupid. This is the "ad hominem" argument:   meaning,  "to the person."  
Logically it is irrelevant.  If Joe says the sun is shining and you argue 
that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does this tell 
us about the condition of the sun?  
"That the ad hominem argument is irrelevant is usually all the logic texts 
say about it, but the MOQ allows one to go deeper and make what may be an 
original contribution.  It says the ad hominem argument is a form of evil.
The MOQ divides the hominem, or "individual" into four parts: inorganic, 
biological, and intellectual.  Once this analysis is made, the ad hominem 
argument can be defined more clearly: It is an attempt destroy the 
intellectual  patterns of an individual by attacking his social status.  In 
other words, a lower form of evolution is being used to destroy a higher 
form.  That is evil.  
"However the MOQ suggests that this only an intellectual evil.  In 
politics, for example, to identify your political opponent as a former Nazi 
is not evil if he really was a Nazi, because politics is a dominantly 
social activity rather than an intellectual activity."