[MD] For Peter

[Ham Priday]

Arlo --


Why don't you feed your questions to an e-mail machine that will 
automatically post them at regular intervals?  It would save you the effort 
of retyping them.

> Yeah, I know you disagree with me. I get that.
> What I want is what answers you offer instead.

I gave you the answers "I offer instead" and you called them "gobbledygook". 
If you won't take philosophy seriously, why bother to communicate with us? 
No one gets any pleasure from a barrage of insults.  Your interest clearly 
lies in anthropology or paleontology, and not metaphysics.  I'm not an 
authoritative source of such information, nor do I believe it contributes to 
philosophical insight.

I've repeatedly said that evolutionary timelines and physiological 
development are not my specialty.  This isn't a lie or an evasion of your 
inquisition; it happens to be the truth.  Your questions relate to the phyla 
of species in a historical context.  Most of them are answered in the works 
of anthropologists.  They won't give you a genetic or sociological basis for 
consciousness, of course, but they do table prehistoric eras during which 
conscious activities, like rubbing sticks to create fire and establishing 
social communities, first occurred.

The impasse here is your notion of "consciousness" as manifested behavior --  
something exhibited or performed, rather than known subjectively as 
self-awareness.  Like all objectivists, you look for observed evidence in a 
chronicle of events.  Conscious awareness does not meet your needs because 
it's not an objective phenomenon.  I'm describing it subjectively, 
epistemologically, and logically, from a metaphysical viewpoint.  You can 
lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.  By that analogy, Arlo 
doesn't even know what water is.

I've shown you why your mechanistic theory doesn't hold water, and provided 
a
metaphysical alternative that you reject without consideration.  My thesis 
is certainly no more "Poof!" than your "mythos" of collective consciousness. 
So, what's the point of further discussion, apart from rebuffing your 
creative insults?  You've used the word "stupid" to describe your reality 
perspective.  I'd say it's the outcome of being stubborn as a kicking mule. 
Now THERE's an animal you can readily identify with!

Thanks for the time, Arlo.

--Ham