[MD] Social level for humans only

[david buchanan]

Krimel said to dmb:
What you are taking as "snarkiness" and rudeness might also be interpreted at frustration at your lack of engagement with the issues raised. ... That rude comment was preceded by another: "It is hard to see how anyone interested in the idea of consciousness could ignore or dismiss Chalmers but for dmb it's not a problem." The snarkiness is clearly a mark of frustration at this tactic of yours. The rudeness is an admittedly bad rhetorical move aimed at getting you to stop it.

dmb says:

When did I ever ignore or dismiss Chalmers? David Thomas asked me a question involving his ideas and so I asked him to clarify the question and to suss out where he's coming from. How does such a query constitute a dismissal. How does my little investigation count as ignoring him. Granted, he's not somebody I've thought about up until now but how is that worthy of condemnation. I guess it would count a point against me if I had claimed to be omniscient in the ways of consciousness studies or something. So far, I like the guy.
See, that's part of the problem with talking to you. You think I'm failing to engage the "issues" but I just don't see it that way at all. As I see it, you are constantly asking me to defend ideas and positions that I do not hold. The fact is, I simply did not and would not dismiss the guy. I simply asked Dave if Chalmers was operating with the assumptions of SOM or not. To this you add the assumption that I asked that question for the purpose of dismissing Chalmers and then condemn me for the part YOU added. The stuff you attribute to me simply can't be taken seriously.

For example, in this post you said you were offended by the pride I take in being narrow and shallow. That's just dumb. That's childish and ridiculous and it's very fucking typical too. Whenever you get your hackles up you get real mean and real stupid. Comments like this aren't pointed at anything real. Nobody, not even a straw man in a cartoon, takes pride in being shallow and narrow. You and I both know that it a pre-emptive strike. That is exactly the implication of my criticism of your square reductionism. Hell, I'd think you were slightly autistic if you didn't crack a joke now and then. 

Anyway, that's how almost all of your criticisms strike me. I ignore science? I ignore psychology? I want to stick with late 19th century thinking? Mysticism is beyond the body? Plato was just a spiritual being existing outside of the food-chain? I could list ridiculous positions that you've attributed to me all day long. And now you're angry for my failure to engage with the "issues". 


What issues?! If we subtract all the bullshit you're making up, there ain't nothing left! Whenever there is an actual issue, I dish up good evidence and you promptly freak out with a shit-storm of abuse. You don't seem to have the temperament for this. I think you'll find that narcissistic rage doesn't cut it in academia. You better grow up fast, Grandpa.