[MD] Social level for humans only

[MarshaV]

On Aug 27, 2010, at 2:46 PM, David Thomas wrote:

> On 8/27/10 1:23 PM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> Hello Dave T,  
>> 
>>         Adrie had written:
>>         Hence the reason why som cannot be the perfect umbrella for the
>> intellectual
>>         level?  
>> 
>> This doesn't sound like simply comparing and contrasting.  It sounds like a
>> final judgement. 
>> 
> And how did I respond?
> 
>> [Dave before]
>> To some degree RMP, and maybe all of science, over stigmatizes SOM. Given
>> how little was known about the workings of the brain and its relationship to
>> the body, the intuition to make this distinction has led to significant
>> progress in many areas of science. So the theory is not quite perfect, shit
>> none of them every are. Usefulness is about as good as we get.
> 
> Dave:
> If you look at the history of philosophy at any point in time, with any
> particular philosopher or school, they were more WRONG than right. But out
> of this overtime better and better understanding of reality has evolved to
> the benefit of all. I understand you may think I spend all my time finding
> ways to bad mouth RMP. But guess what? I wouldn't be to the point that I
> could criticize him without him leading me into the topic in the first place
> and showing me a map. For someone with such a negative view of static
> patterns your fixation with Pirsig's and Bo's is hard to fathom.


Marsha:
I do not have a negative view of static patterns.  I do, though, recognize them 
as patterns, conventional, and not some independent "reality."  

And as I indicated, my post was directed at Adrie's comment.

        Adrie had written:
        Hence the reason why som cannot be the perfect umbrella for the intellectual
        level?  

----


If you are comparing and contrasting Chalmers' ideas against RMP's 
concerning consciousness, what are you using as RMP's ideas; he's 
said very little directly?      




 
___