[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[Arlo previously]
Ham has said that at some point in the historical timeline, call it Point
Alpha, there were primates that did NOT have consciousness. Then, at a later
point, call it Point Beta, there were primates that DID have consciousness.

[Kieffer]
To some extent (that is with some qualification) I can agree with his
statement, first being: the effect we refer to as consciousness.

[Arlo]
Oh I agree with this too. I'm not disputing Ham's claims (One, that
"consciousness" appears in the timeline at some point, Two, that
"consciousness" evolves both historically and ontogenetically (within the human
lifespan)). I'm calling Ham out on his absolute inability to ACCOUNT for his
claims.

Any metaphysics that not only includes, but elevates, human consciousness to
the lofty heights Ham does MUST account for it; where it comes from, what is
it's nature, does it evolves, if so how... 

And (I repeat myself) this also stems from Ham's DENIAL that the appearance of
"human consciousness" can be traced to genetics (biology) or some manner of
social processes. He has been firm that those are NOT the ground from which
"human consciousness" appears. I ask you, is my question "alright then, where
does it come from?" so unfair? 

Ham has now retreated to the "transcendental" realm (a great cop-out) that says
"hey, you just gotta believe, brother, you just gotta believe". But this raises
several other questions. 

For example. Does "human consciousness" precede the birth of the infant? If you
answer "yes", you have to account for "where" and "how it gets attached to that
neonate/infant". If you answer "no", then you have to explain how a
"transcendental non-existent" comes into being when a male sperm boinks into a
female egg. I mean, neither the sperm nor the egg hold any "trancendentalness"
do they? So where does the "transcendentalness" come from? Does it float around
waiting for fertilized human eggs to attach to? Does God pop it into the
new-formed infant from some transcendental netherspace?

And, we can take that further, why doesn't a male chipmunk sperm and a female
chipmunk egg produce "transcendentalness"? Does this ethereal
transcendentalness that floats around looking for human embryos to attach to
somehow know not to attach to chipmunk embryos?

[Kieffer]
I think we both know that within the framework of his thesis he cannot answer.

[Arlo]
And that speaks volumes for both his "thesis" and him, don't you think? 

[Arlo previously]
Ham has also said that consciousness evolves. That is, at some point in the
historical timeline, call it Point Alpha, there were distant humans
(Neanderthals, e.g.) that had a lesser evolved consciousness than at a latter
point, call it Point Beta.

[Kieffer]
Again, without any nit-picking, I, and I think you also, agree with this
statement.

[Arlo]
Sure I do. And the "process" by which it evolves is (IMO) the ongoing evolution
of the collective consciousness, or cultural milieu, into which successive
generations of humans are born. The reason that modern humans have a more
evolved consciousness is because the great body of collective knowledge that
modern man is born into is far deeper, far greater, and far more complex that
what those early Neanderthals were born into. (By the way, I think there is
also a socio-biological feedback loop whereas the mental activity of successive
generations of humans has brought an unprecedented rapidity in
neural-biological evolution; social activity influences biological patterns).

[Kieffer]
Ham is in the Intelligent Design camp.

[Arlo]
I'd still say Ham is more theist/deist (which includes IDers, for sure).

[Kieffer]
Arlo, by discussing Ham's idea we somehow perpetuate it. I hope that Ham has
the flexibility to really question the foundations of his thesis. He has put
in a lot of work and it always is very difficult in such situations to abandon
that large investment.

[Arlo]
Yeah, I agree, which is why I normally stay clear of dialogue with Ham (or
about Ham's "thesis").