[MD] For Peter

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Ham]
the question before Philosophy which should concern man is not HOW
consciousness developed in the species but WHAT IT IS.

[Arlo]
You can't say what it is, if you cant' say anything about its origins. And more
than this, what you say about what it IS also makes claims about its origins.
If you claim it IS NOT physiological, and it IS NOT social, then you are
already making claims about its origins (namely, "Abracadabra! Poof!" a "gift
from on high"). 

You can deride my views until you are purple in the face, Ham. At least I can
articulate answers. At least I don't have to hide behind veils of evasion and
dishonesty. But until you offer some alternative to what I propose, some other
answer to mine, then you are just blowing hot air.

To remind.

1. YOU claimed "consciousness evolves from genus to species". Isn't that right?

2. Fine, I say. HOW? Physiologists propose it's evolution is based on the
genetic mutations of DNA. "No, no", you say. Social theorists say it's
evolution is based on the creation of, and participation in, a collective
consciousness. "No no", you say. Fine, then HOW? HOW according to Ham does your
non-physiological, non-social consciousness evolve over time?

3. YOU claimed that at some point in the timeline there existed a time when
consciousness did not exist, in some pre-pre-primates. Then there existed a
time when consciousness did exist.

4. Fine, I say. WHAT CHANGED? Physiologists say biology changed. "No no", you
say "that's scientific reductionism". Social theorists say the introduction of
social activity is what changed. "No no", you say "that's commie nonsense".
Fine, then WHAT CHANGED? WHAT according to Ham is the non-physiological,
non-social change in the historic timeline that leads to consciousness?

You've also claimed, I am told, that "not all members of a species evolve at
the same rate". I have follow-up questions to this, but I will wait until you
ever can answer any of these here.

[Ham]
And if you buy into Arlo's theory that "DNA-driven spawning of shared attention
at the social level" became "self-reflective" individual consciousness, I can
probably sell you a bridge in Brooklyn.

[Arlo]
Oh yes, Arlo is so wrong. So what is right, Ham? Answer my questions above
according to your view, and enlighten this clearly less sophisticated thinker
than yourself.