[Ham]
I do hope Arlo no longer feels slighted...
[Arlo]
Arlo has never felt slighted. But Arlo read your latest post again
and yet has no sense whatsoever for any evolutionary understanding of
the origins of human consciousness in your words. You, again, dismiss
social participation as a foundational cause for the appearance of
man's "unique" consciousness, but, again, offer nothing whatsoever as
an alternative.
So I ask, again, Ham, if it is NOT social participation that lies at
the root of man's unique consciousness, what does? You've agreed that
at some distant time in the past there were primates, from which man
descended, that did not possess this (or am I wrong about this?), and
so I ask you, if not socialization, then "what happened?" What
changed? What is different about modern man than his prehistorical
primate ancestors that accounts for his "unique consciousness"? You
dismiss "social participation", and into this void the only thing I
see you offering is some form of genetic adaptation/mutation. If not,
if you propose something else, please correct me here.
[Ham]
[Human consciousness] is the immanent core of individual
apprehension, as inseparable from the subjective observer as his physical body.
[Arlo]
Okay. But this simply restates "it exists". What I am asking is
"where does it come from?" You say repeatedly that you "don't care"
(my words), but you obviously do if you dismiss social theories
outright. So this "immanent core", was it present in the primates
from which we descend? Was it present in the even earlier
pre-primates that primates descended from? If not, then what accounts
for its appearance in the evolutionary time-line? What? If not social
participation, and not genetics, then what?
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/
