[MD] For Peter

[Platt Holden]

> [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.

Platt said nothing of the kind. Platt actually asked this question in 
response to an SA claim:

"Please jog my memory. When did I write "evolve," "need for an origin" and
"intention."?

Arlo then takes the following ten paragraphs NOT to answer the question. 
And both complain about evasions and dishonesty?

Hypocrisy anyone? (SA, you can look it up.)   


> [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.
> 
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/