> [Platt] > Why start a new thread when its simply a rehash of the old one? Also, > why don't you answer my question as to why you are curious? > > [Arlo] > I did answer your question. The topic interests me, hence I am > curious.
Why does the topic interest you? Why would you want answers from someone you describe as a moron? > Now, are you going to answer my questions? I've started a > new thread because, now after four evasions, I wanted to give you a > more focused forum in hopes this may prompt you to, at the very > least, try to answer. After all, since you so often ridicule and > deride others on this forum with such moronic glibs as "oops", I > thought it'd be enlightening to see what you could offer instead. > > So, here goes for a fifth time. > > [Arlo previously] > Platt had, as is typical, derided the arguments made by Krimel (about > the origins of consciousness) as "oops". Since Ham has already > indicated his beliefs to be "poof", but has been wholly unable to > articulate any answers to these simple questions, I thought that > Platt, who also advocates a "Great Poof" theory should have a go at > them. After three posts of evasion (thread was under What is SOM?), I > thought I pull this into a new thread to, to give Platt (or Ham) a > more noticeable forum to consider these questions. > > I am also adding to this the question about the evolution of > consciousness. But first, the thread Platt has (so far) been wholly > unable to answer. Hopefully his next post to this will be answers to > these questions. > > [Arlo had asked] > First, I assume you'd agree that at some point in the far, far > distant past, some pre-pre-primate of man lacked the sophistication > in consciousness/awareness that "man" possesses. If you disagree > here, let me know. > > If we accept the above premise, then something had to change, some > event or something that occurred, some change in something, that can > account for the appearance of something where it did not exist before. > No? > > I've been vocal about my view on social participation (an unintended > consequence of neurological evolution) being this "change". > Physiologists may point to simply the neurobiological changes in > themselves that account for the appearance of human consciousness. > Both of these views you characterize (slyly) as "oops". I've argued > that these are not "oops" but "aha's!", moments where Quality latched > onto the unexpected formations that appeared due to genetic changes. > > So I ask you, Platt, "what changed?" You disavow both physiological > and sociological theories. I know that. So what do you offer instead? > The only thing I could glean from Ham's responses is a sort of Divine > Intervention, a great "Abracadabra!" or "Poof!" where "on high" > (Ham's words) suddenly poofed consciousness into existence. > > What do you offer instead of these? Although you run from the word, > the only thing you have ever offered in the past is "Great Poof" a la > Ham of some "Qualigod". Now tell me, if not "oops" or "aha!" or > "poof", then what? > > [Arlo adds a new question to Platt] > Is it your opinion, along with Ham, that "consciousness" in man has > evolved over historic time, from "genus to species" (as Ham said), > from the earliest primates with this consciousness to modern man? Or > did "consciousness" appear fully-formed and fully-evolved in those > early primates? > > 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/ 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/
