[SA] This has gone on so long, refresh my memory, Platt is saying he never asked or made statements about "what changed?" and "how does consciousness evolve?"
He also said he never mentioned "the origin" answer, but that I know he did, for he was going on about intention. [Arlo] This started with Platt when he, once again, derided Krimel's answer to these questions with his glib "oops". You, see, other's accounts of the "origin of consciousness" he derides, so since I was just having the same issue with Ham I thought it'd be a great opportunity to show what Platt (along with Ham) offer as their alternative. So, with the timeline questions, Platt derides others who point to "what changed?" as "oops". So I asked, OK, what do you offer instead? The follow-up to the evolution of consciousness was something that, since Ham was struggling to conceal his inability to answer, and knowing that Ham and Platt espouse a theistic view, I figured it would be a good one to see how Platt, if he could, would answer. But, of course, he can't. On the surface, of course, the reason is that they absolutely cannot stomach the idea of "social" origins of human consciousness (its commie, after all). And they've long ridiculed science as "reductionist". So they HAVE to denounce these things. But, when it comes to it, they have nothing, not even a well-crafted theism, to offer instead. Everytime Platt trotts out his glib "oops", one should ask "what instead?" Something had to change in the historic timeline to account for the appearance of consciousness, so if the physiologists and sociologists are just "oops", then what do you say changed? Platt was smart enough not to answer the question about consciousness evolving because he can't, from his position, answer either way without revealing his poorly constructed theism. If he said "yes", as did Ham, he would have to explain "how?" Is it hereditary? Social? If not, what process accounts for consciousness evolving over time? And, if he said "no" then he would have to run counter to the vast body of anthropological data that reveal our distant primate ancestors to have a far les sophisticated consciousness than our own. AND, if he denies THIS, he'd have to explain what he means by "consciousness" that one could see how both those early primates AND humans have it to the exact same degree. So the only answer he could offer to all this, logically and consistently, is "Qualigod". But that too he won't do, because his theism is bereft. And so his only recourse has been to rely on blatant dishonesty and evasion. [SA] Yeah, Platt still hasn't been able to answer those questions, but he's now claiming you dragged him into this and he never had anything to say about evolution and change and intention, etc... [Arlo] Of course he is. Its his last "out" (short of honest admission). But he was dragged into this only after he, for the umpteenth time, derided someone who did offer answers as "oops". THAT is a claim about consciousness, that someone else is a fool to think as they do. So, it is completely fair to ask him, "what do you offer instead? what do you think "changed"?" The answer has been "Abracadabra! Poof! of Qualigod". Appreciate your input and support, SA. I do hope you see, maybe just a little, why I handle Platt the way I do. 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/
