[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Heather Perella]

> > SA previously:  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.

Platt: 
> 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. 

SA:  true.  My mistake.

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

SA: o

 
> > SA previously 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 previously: 
> > > Without offering any evidence, you charge is ad
> hominem. 
> > > I'm surprised, 
> > > SA. It's not like you to be like Arlo. 
> > 
> > SA previously:  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.

Platt: 
> >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."

SA:  That's all good, but when did I make this mistake?  All's I can find is Ham not being able to understand his own words, which I'm referring to a recent exchange between Ham and Ron in which Ham finally admitted that for over two years (and more surely) he has tried to argue out what dichotomy means and has tried to argue against me and others, but then Ron with his clever logic (seriously) was able to point out to Ham what so many others were, that Ham was trying to separate the world.  Now Ham knows a little bit more about what he's trying to use as an argument, he learned something, and he's back off on this valid issue.  So, I was clearly pointing out that Ham might not know what he's saying, which obviously then that's why Ham communicates his thesis in a confusing manner.


cloudy,
SA