[MD] Social level for humans only

[MarshaV]

On Aug 27, 2010, at 4:16 PM, David Thomas wrote:

>>> [Marsha ask:]
>>> 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?
> [Dave]
> In the context of the ongoing discussion this started with DMB's claim that
> RMP's position on consciousness was the same as James because RMP points to
> radical empiricism and pragmatism as the two schools of thought MoQ is an
> extension of. 
> 
> I objected to that claim, and this discussion ensued.
> 
> But at the same time researcher's all around the world are spending a huge
> amount of time and effort on the nature of "consciousness" and RMP hardly
> even mentions it. Why "no comment" on something so obviously important? And
> could leaving something that significant out be a fatal error for the whole
> system? You seem to care about the MoQ but care nothing about issues that
> could invalidate it. I find that odd. Kind of like loving a paint for its
> wonderful color, luster, and buttery feel.  Except that each morning you
> wake up to find its all laying on the floor beneath the canvas, but you
> still keep using it day after day, because YOU LOVE THAT PAINT!
> 
> Dave

Dave,

My one-liner may be something an eigth-grader might understand, but it 
seems to represent the MoQ's conception of consciousness fairly well.  It 
was:
   
      The process of static patterns of value interacting within a field of 
      dynamic quality. 

Invalidate by whom?  Are you so anxious to stuff the MoQ with philosophological 
phrasing to accomodate the "issues"?  


Marsha  


 
___