[MD] For Peter

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[SA]
This has gone on so long, refresh my memory, Platt is saying he never asked or
made statements about "what changed?" and "how does consciousness evolve?"  

He also said he never mentioned "the origin" answer, but that I know he did,
for he was going on about intention.

[Arlo]
This started with Platt when he, once again, derided Krimel's answer to these
questions with his glib "oops". You, see, other's accounts of the "origin of
consciousness" he derides, so since I was just having the same issue with Ham 
I thought it'd be a great opportunity to show what Platt (along with Ham) offer
as their alternative. 

So, with the timeline questions, Platt derides others who point to "what
changed?" as "oops". So I asked, OK, what do you offer instead? 

The follow-up to the evolution of consciousness was something that, since Ham
was struggling to conceal his inability to answer, and knowing that Ham and
Platt espouse a theistic view, I figured it would be a good one to see how
Platt, if he could, would answer. But, of course, he can't.

On the surface, of course, the reason is that they absolutely cannot stomach
the idea of "social" origins of human consciousness (its commie, after all).
And they've long ridiculed science as "reductionist". So they HAVE to denounce
these things. But, when it comes to it, they have nothing, not even a
well-crafted theism, to offer instead. 

Everytime Platt trotts out his glib "oops", one should ask "what instead?"
Something had to change in the historic timeline to account for the appearance
of consciousness, so if the physiologists and sociologists are just "oops",
then what do you say changed?

Platt was smart enough not to answer the question about consciousness evolving
because he can't, from his position, answer either way without revealing his
poorly constructed theism. If he said "yes", as did Ham, he would have to
explain "how?" Is it hereditary? Social? If not, what process accounts for
consciousness evolving over time? And, if he said "no" then he would have to
run counter to the vast body of anthropological data that reveal our distant
primate ancestors to have a far les sophisticated consciousness than our own.
AND, if he denies THIS, he'd have to explain what he means by "consciousness"
that one could see how both those early primates AND humans have it to the
exact same degree.

So the only answer he could offer to all this, logically and consistently, is
"Qualigod". But that too he won't do, because his theism is bereft. And so his
only recourse has been to rely on blatant dishonesty and evasion. 

[SA]
Yeah, Platt still hasn't been able to answer those questions, but he's now
claiming you dragged him into this and he never had anything to say about
evolution and change and intention, etc...

[Arlo]
Of course he is. Its his last "out" (short of honest admission). But he was
dragged into this only after he, for the umpteenth time, derided someone who
did offer answers as "oops". THAT is a claim about consciousness, that someone
else is a fool to think as they do. So, it is completely fair to ask him, "what
do you offer instead? what do you think "changed"?" The answer has been
"Abracadabra! Poof! of Qualigod". 

Appreciate your input and support, SA. I do hope you see, maybe just a little,
why I handle Platt the way I do.