> [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?
And I ask again, why ask someone you consider a moron anything? > 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/
