[Platt]
What's really funny is neither Krimel or Arlo can answer the
questions. Well, not funny maybe. Sad.
[Arlo]
I shouldn't even have to do this, but I will. Why do you lie so
blatantly, Platt? Since I am reposting my answers, how about you take
a break from your lies and evasions and actually answer them
yourself? Since you are offering nothing BUT lies and evasions,
Platt, maybe you should reflect on that a bit too...
[Arlo in a post just yesterday to Chris, in this very thread]
That's the way I see it. I think, as I've mentioned a bit ago, that
Tomasello's work on "The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition" ties
directly into the MOQ. His central premise is that at some point in
the timeline the evolving neurobiology of primates (biologic level)
attained a degree of complexity that beget an unintended consequence
(meaning neurobiological evolution was not moving towards this
directly nor purposefully) of allowing primates to have "shared
attention" (what he points to as the beginning point for social
symbolic activity). As the complexity and sophistication of the
primates' symbol use evolved (evolution occurring because the
collective consciousess formed by shared social activity would be
added to and modified over time by primates who assimilate this),
eventually self-reflective symbols became involved (Hofstadter's work
here is enlightening) and what we think of as "modern consciousness"
appears. (I hold that the intellectual level itself is the level of
symbolic self-reflection, when humans turned from using their symbols
to represent experience and considered them as real "things in themselves").
To rephrase this along the lines of the questions that Ham and Platt
are incapable of addressing.
What changed between early primates without consciousness and humans
with consciousness is... a level of neuro-biological complexity
brought about by DNA-driven biological evolution that spawned the
unintended consequence of allowing shared attention and hence the
emergence of social activity.
The mechanism by which consciousness evolves is.... the collective
consciousness (the "mythos"), which evolves over time as new
generations and new individuals assimilate it and add to it and
modify it. Successive generations of primates assimilated a greater
and more complex collective consciousness than their forefathers and
foremothers, and their activity moved it further still.
And to restate, from here the growing complexity of the social level
(shared symbolic activity) hit a level of complexity where it was
able to become self-reflective (the experiential descriptor "blue"
went from being a modifier in shared activity to a "thing in itself",
"what is blueness?"). The "self" is one such self-referential loop.
[Platt]
Note that a key question was deliberately omitted: Why do you think
"spontaneously arise" is any different than "oops."
[Arlo]
Oops is what you say when you make a mistake. Aha! is what you say
when you find something of value unexpectedly. YOU are the one who
uses the moronically glib "oops" to deride others. So, apart from
"Abracadabra! Poof!" what do you offer instead.
What is "sad" is your outright charlantanism here. Now, why don't YOU answer...
What changed between early primates without consciousness and humans
with consciousness is... ??
The mechanism by which consciousness evolves is.... ??
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/
