> [Platt] > Since you omitted my answers to your questions this exchange stops here. > > [Arlo] > I didn't "omit" anything. The quotations you provided are still in the > archives. Why repeat them?
You repeated everything else. Why omit them? They did not address EITHER question (anyone > can > check their past emails to see that). Instead of helping your readers you expect them to do your work for you. Typical liberal elitism. > Your inability to answer, and your > attempt to pawn off unrelated quotations as "answers" is what is stopping > this > exchange. Should you care to actually ANSWER any of these questions (not > that > you answered any from our last exchange either), I am game. So I will > repeat. > > How does the MOQ refute Hofstadter's view that consciousness is an > emergent > pattern made possible by the increasing complexity of the substrata under > it > (biological and inorganic patterns)? > > According to you, does the MOQ say that consciousness existed before > brains? If > so, where? Are you saying that "everything is consciousness", replacing > "Quality" with "consciousness" as in "inorganic patterns of > consciousness"? > What about "mind"? Are atoms "inorganic patterns of mind"? > > Finally, "purpose" too is an intellectual pattern. Do you dispute this? If > so, > what is it if it is NOT an intellectual pattern? If the MOQ embraces > BOTH > non-teleological and teleological positions, it must mean that these > positions > are relativistic to the culture/values from which the question is asked, > and as > such "purpose" (like all intellectual patterns) emerge from the > social-cultural > level. Hofstadter would agree with this (in fact he says this very thing > in his > book). > > So, actually answer the questions? Or, you could pretend we are all too > stupid > to read your past emails and act like you really did answer the questions > and > play "poor ol' picked on Platt" when pressed to actually answer them. My > bet is > the latter. But you could prove me wrong and actually give me some > answers... > (Methinks I'll be adding these to long list of avoided and unanswered > questions > that you use these tactics to try to skip over). > > As for your article, anyone can write anything. I prefer to let me own > personal > experiences guide my views. There are problems, deficiencies and areas > for > improvement in all human endeavors, the Academy is no different, but > overall it > is Good, notwithstanding the perennial right-wing anti-intellectual > assaults. Since anyone can write anything, why believe anything you write? 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/
