[Platt]
Why does the topic interest you? Why would you want answers from someone you describe as a moron?

[Arlo]
I'd like answers because you continually deride others with moronic glibs such as "oops". Since you find it so easy to ridicule others, I wanted to see what you could possibly offer instead. You've now answered this, "nothing". You allude to a "Great Poof", but seem unwilling to talk about it directly, possibly because you see how absurd it is. If I am wrong here, then please, by all means, actually answer my questions below and prove me wrong.

Don't get me wrong, I do understand why you and Ham are both incapable and unwilling to deal with these questions. And I think that's now evident for everyone to see (if it wasn't already). Phaedrus encountered the same thing in Chicago with the Chairman. "He shouldn't have cut it off, Phædrus thinks to himself. Were he a real Truth-seeker and not a propagandist for a particular point of view he would not. He might learn something." (ZMM).

Your ongoing evasions point to which you are (and Ham as well). But I am always happy to be proven wrong. Here is now a sixth attempt at getting some answers.

[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/

Reply via email to