[MD] Consciousness a la Platt

[Platt Holden]

> 
> > > 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.

To suggest someone "doesn't know what his own words mean" is the same as 
saying he's stupid.