[Ham] If a criticism of your theory on rational grounds implies "stupidity" on your part, I defer to the author's judgment.
[Arlo] "Rational grounds"? You mean "I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you" is a rational rebuttal to an argument? At any rate, yeah, I know you disagree with me. I get that. What I want is what answers you offer instead. Let's see if you can do that? [Ham] What follows is an abridgement of the creation hypothesis detailed in my online thesis. [Arlo] Yes, this is the same gobbledygook you rolled out last time. Try as I might (being of lesser intellect than you) I simply cannot find any answers to my two questions therein. Maybe you could highlight your answers into my reposted questions below? And if anyone else thinks there are answers to my questions in the word soup Ham offered, please by all means, highlight the parts that answer these questions. Better yet, cut and paste the relevant parts beneath each question below. To remind. 1. YOU claimed "consciousness evolves from genus to species". Isn't that right? 2. Fine, I say. HOW? Physiologists propose it's evolution is based on the genetic mutations of DNA. "No, no", you say. Social theorists say it's evolution is based on the creation of, and participation in, a collective consciousness. "No no", you say. Fine, then HOW? HOW according to Ham does your non-physiological, non-social consciousness evolve over time? 3. YOU claimed that at some point in the timeline there existed a time when consciousness did not exist, in some pre-pre-primates. Then there existed a time when consciousness did exist. 4. Fine, I say. WHAT CHANGED? Physiologists say biology changed. "No no", you say "that's scientific reductionism". Social theorists say the introduction of social activity is what changed. "No no", you say "that's commie nonsense". Fine, then WHAT CHANGED? WHAT according to Ham is the non-physiological, non-social change in the historic timeline that leads to consciousness? You've also claimed, I am told, that "not all members of a species evolve at the same rate". I have follow-up questions to this, but I will wait until you ever can answer any of these here. [Ham] You will not accept this thesis, because you are beholden to Pirsig's hierarchy of existence and reject a metaphysical source. [Arlo] You mean Qualigod/Essiegod? Yes, I reject that. Very astute of you. [Ham] But at least I have provided a complete answer to your question... [Arlo] HA HA! Where?! Kindly repost your answer and show me, specifically, where your answers are to the questions above! [Ham] Hopefully, this response will bring our current exchange to a long overdue close. [Arlo] When you get back to me and show me specifically where answers to my questions are hidden in your reply, then we can bring it to an exchange. I suggest simply taking your posts and cutting the text and pasting each answer directly below the question above. Otherwise, Ham, its just fairly obvious you spent another post seeking to avoid the questions. 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/
