[Krimel] Frankly, given the quality of his answers, I am beginning to think Platt "is" an AI bot.
[Arlo] C'mon, Krimel mi amigo, you can't honestly tell me you were surprised by Platt's inability to answer these questions? Nor can you tell me you were surprised by the empty evasions he has tried to counter with. Way back, a contributor to this forum pegged Ham's Essentialism as "a thinly veiled theism". Its essentially (pun intended) religion with Essence as God and a goobledygook of words who seem more designed to obfuscate than enlighten. In this last go-round, that is precisely all he could offer, although he has been less that honest and upfront, saying instead "consciousness is a gift from on high". So, into our timeline, Essence waved a magic wand, said "Abracadbra!" and "Poof!" there appeared consciousness in primates. This same theism is his account of how consciousness has evolved over historic time, namely the God Essence simply "poofs" new and improved models of consciousness into man each generation. It's absurd, to be sure, and this is why Ham can only run from my honest, simple questions about HIS claims. Platt on the other hand is worse, because Platt claims to represent the MOQ. However, the MOQ Platt expounds is a theistic MOQ, governed by Qualigod, who's plan the entirety of history enacts. Notice his recent glibs about my phrase "unintended consequences". Fine, I say, so Platt proposes instead "intended plans". The atoms "planned" to make cells, cells "planned" to make bodies. Bodies "planned" to make consciousness. Or maybe everything is simply Play-Dough fashioned as per Qualigod's Great Plan. To the same questions I asked Ham, Platt could only allude to the same theistic theme as Ham; Qualigod went "Abracadabra" and "Poof!" there was consciousness. The only difference appears to be that Platt's Qualigod is enacting a Great Plan. Ham's has yet to reveal its planning intensionality. As for the question concerning the historic evolution of consciousness, Platt has tried to avoid Ham's mistake of answering, as either answer "yes, consciousness has evolved" or "no, it has not" both open up a tree of logical subsequent questioning that his Qualigod concept is too bereft to handle. And so he does all he can, hide behind evasion and rhetorical devices to try to deflect away from this. Sadly, both have been too weak to even stand up and fess up to these views. Or, answer my questions and tell me how I am wrong. My guess is that even they are embarrassed by the absurdity of their answers, or perhaps they can see that answers to these questions lead to an inevitable conclusion they simply can't ideologically stomach. So instead they resort to the appalling rhetoric we have seen. But again, is this really a surprise for you? For anyone?? 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/
