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.
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/md/archives.html
