I've excised all the irrelevant bits. [Arlo's Question One Still Unanswered] You had said that there existed a single animal, let's call it Animal X, that existed at some time in the past, that COULD respond to DQ. You have also said that no animal today can respond to DQ.
Give me an example of something Animal X could do, as an animal that could respond to DQ, that no animal today can do. There is Animal X over by that tree... tell me what it could do that no animal today can do. [Arlo Question Two Still Unanswered] Can all humans respond to DQ? You've tried to clarify this by asking about Alzheimer's patients and those suffering from Multiple-Personality Disorder. So, to make it easier, I am defining humans as any biological creature of the order homo sapiens. Now, please answer. (You can always say "yes, with the exception of...") [Platt] So how come you think the unsocial wind responds to DQ? [Arlo] The wind is inorganic patterns responding to DQ on the inorganic level. Humans are enabled to respond ot DQ on the social and intellectual levels (in addition to the inorganic and biological levels). [Arlo's Unanwered Question Three] Let's take what we consider to be homo sapiens, what's that about 200,000 years ago? During this time, was there any simultaneous overlap as I mentioned? No? [Platt] If you were alive them, perhaps you can tell us? [Arlo] Speculate. When, in your opinion, did the last animal who could respond to DQ live? A million years ago? Ten million? The point is, if animals could at one time respond to DQ, but no longer can, I am interested in "how" they lost this ability. [Arlo's Unanswered Question Four] Is there anything in our universe, apart from that which involves "man", that is still evolving? What about on earth? Examples? [Platt] In our universe? Please define? Do you think man is still evolving? How so? [Arlo] Yes, I think all levels are still evolving. Now, do you think there is anything on earth that is still evolving with the exception of that which includes "man"? [Arlo had said] Or, you could say, "I hold an absurd position that I am unable to justify or defend, but I wish to hold it anyway because I am more interested in clinging to my beliefs than I am in expanding my understanding", and we can just leave it at that. It would sure beat the little run-arounds and rhetoric games than say the same thing. Just thought I'd give you this out... [Platt] Or you could say, "I hold an absurd position that everything experiences DQ all the time which I am unable to justify or provide one scintilla of evidence for, but I wish to hold it anyway because I'm more interested in clinging to my beliefs than I am in expanding my understanding, and we can just leave it at that." [Arlo] Thanks for the Pee-Wee Manuever, but it makes no sense (I mean, it makes sense why you do it, sadly, but it makes no sense logically). I can answer all of these question, have answered all of these questions, from my position. So prove me wrong. If your position is not the absurd one, answer 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/
