[Platt]
A non answer. Why do you want "to see what I could offer instead"
since you already consider me a moron?
[Arlo]
As I said, twice, because you ridicule and deride others who do
provide thoughtful, articulate, reasoned answers. So I ask, what do
you offer instead? Again, the answer is "nothing", short of an
alluded to Great Poof of Qualigod (I suppose you'd agree with Ham
that the reason consciousness appears to evolve over time has been
that Qualigod simply updates the models each year prior to poofing it
into humans?)
But here's yet another round at an answer, not that I expect one at
this point, since you've show clearly your inability to answer.
Thanks, by the way, for the opportunity to demonstrate once again the
"Carousel of Faux Philosophy" for all to see. (Hey... prove me wrong!
Answer my questions!!)
[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", the 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/
