skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The belief that what really exists is mental may sound somewhat preposterous today, but yet this conviction has played an important role in philosophy, especially in German philosophy from Kant to Heidegger.You find the problem in the cartesian doubt. You can doubt everything, even the reality of the world, but you can not doubt the existence of the mind. So, the step to the conclusion that the mind eventually is the only entity of which you are absolutely sure that it is real, is close at hand.Another philosophical line of thinking is: all we really have are sensory impressions. They may be caused by external things or may be hallucinations, at the end all we really have are sensory impressions in our mind.Kant went a step further and concluded that there is something missing here. How can we recognize a sensory impression as being an object in space and time, for instance?What we call reality, is in fact created. organized, by our mind.Thence what is really real, is mental. This quality positioned the human being above the material world.When we think reflectively of mental phenomena we find that we acknowledge them to possess two sets of properties: one set which invites us to distinguish the mental realm from the physical, the other which firmly locates the mental within the physical world. Among the first set of properties are subjectivity, infallible first-person knowledge, consciousness, meaning, rationality, freedom and self-awareness. These properties are not to be found in the world of mere matter, and so lead us to suppose the mind to be set apart from the physical body: we seem compelled to accord a special mode of reality to mental phenomena.However, because of the development of science we accept a few basic truths today, for instance, that the brain, itself a physical organ of the body, is intimately related to mental activity, its integrity and functioning necessary to the integrity and functioning of the mind; that mental phenomena seem to emerge, both in evolution and individual development, from a basis of matter organized in physically explicable ways. These considerations incline us to regard the mind as somehow physical in nature, since it is natural to suppose that only what is itself physical could be so enmeshed in the physical world.The brain and the mind seem to work in parallel: The brain is the physical understructure of the mind. That fact suggests a strategy for investigation. We should be able to find out things about the brain by seeing how the mind works. We should be able to find out things about the mind by seeing how the brain works. The clearest and most uncompromising version of monism is the thesis that mental phenomena are literally identical with physical phenomena: if a person has a sensation or a thought and a neurophysiologist is examining the relevant portions of his brain, then the mental state is nothing other than the physical state thus observed.Moreover, whenever a mental state of that type occurs in a creature's mind there is the same type of physical state in the brain, these being identical.The model for such type identities is said to be provided by such theoretical identifications as that of water with H2O or heat with molecular motion: just as we may be presented with one and the same phenomenon in two different ways and subsequently discover the identity, so-- it has been claimed--we may be presented in two different ways with a mental phenomenon, physically and mentally.Don't think that this is the final story. Far from that, but it was my thesis in 1977 at my graduation from university: The Identity Theory ㋡The Discussion[13:26] herman Bergson: Thank you....[13:27] herman Bergson: The floor is yours, if you like.... ㋡[13:28] herman Bergson: hears everybody think......[13:28] Pirie Takacs: lol[13:28] Sybyle Perdide: timeout ..giggles[13:28] herman Bergson: if you have a question or remark...feel free...[13:29] herman Bergson: Simply stated this identity theory says....[13:29] herman Bergson: some words have different meanings, but the same referent...[13:29] Sybyle Perdide: its a new point of view... two different states of being.. connected.. but it remains a biochemical pc[13:30] herman Bergson: this means ..'water' has another meaning than 'H2O'[13:30] herman Bergson: but both terms refer to the same reality[13:30] Pirie Takacs: I'm very much a novice, so please excuse me if this sounds naive... But how does this explain consciousness, which seems to me to be a leap above the mechanics of the brain?[13:31] herman Bergson: Good question Pirie....[13:31] herman Bergson: actually ...the BIG question....[13:31] Mick Nerido: So in the brain when i see the color red the chemical process is the same for every brain.[13:31] Clint Pheocene: it doesn't...i suspect that the question of consciousness will be answered not by philosophers or neuroscientists, but by physicists[13:31] Bejiita Imako: well i guess everyone sees red as the same color unless colorblind[13:31] Bejiita Imako: d[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Clint ...that may be a possible development....[13:32] Clint Pheocene: everyone as in humans or everyone as in humans/dolphins/aliens?[13:32] herman Bergson: But we have to face a problem here...[13:32] Bejiita Imako: but animals interpret it different as they see at least some speices different parts of the spectra[13:33] Clint Pheocene: it is highly unlikely for an alien to see redness when it sees an apple[13:33] herman Bergson: also when there would be a physical explanation of consciousness[13:33] Mick Nerido: stimulate the same part of everyones brain to get same sensation[13:34] herman Bergson: That is the problem Mick....[13:34] herman Bergson: When I think of the Eifeltower and you do the same...[13:34] Sybyle Perdide: if a physician explains consciousness, he will never get the point of it.. may be the mechanics[13:34] herman Bergson: are there in our brains identical processes going on?[13:34] Mick Nerido: That is my question[13:35] herman Bergson: There is one problem here why they can not be identical...[13:35] herman Bergson: I can say that this is MY experience , like you can say the same....[13:35] Lizzy Pleides: our computers are not yet perfect , will they have a conciousness in future?[13:35] herman Bergson: subjectivity of experiences...[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: if there are similar processes.. it need not mean that the mind's processes are similar[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: to those of the brain[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: I think[13:36] herman Bergson: You cant say that Sybyle when you accept a monist view like the identity theory[13:36] Sybyle Perdide: please explain[13:37] herman Bergson: ANd computers won't get consciousness, Lizzy, but we'll get to that an other time ㋡[13:38] herman Bergson: talking about the mind and talking about the brain is a kind of speaking two different languages, but all words refer to that one and only material reality[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: nods[13:39] herman Bergson: But believe me we aren't even halfway...[13:39] Bejiita Imako: the analogy with a computer i can get is that if the brain is the hardware the mind is sort of the operating system or software that runs on it[13:39] Mick Nerido: The brain is the material the mind is the process of that brain[13:39] herman Bergson: We still have to face a lot of arguments pro and contra[13:39] Bejiita Imako: thats the closest analogy i can think of[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: but spicy pasta tastes same physically to all, but the mind has a different taste in every case[13:39] Sybyle Perdide: so there must not be similarity[13:40] Sybyle Perdide: excuse my english.. I mean need[13:40] herman Bergson: Taste is a difficult issue.....[13:41] herman Bergson: especially because it is highly subjective.....[13:41] herman Bergson: if subjectiveness is a property of my mental states.....who to deal with that property?[13:41] Sybyle Perdide: but isn't that the mind's work?[13:42] herman Bergson: only your mind's work sybyle...[13:42] Pirie Takacs nods.. I know what is spicy to my brain, after its accumulation of data, isn't the same as those of my Indian friend...*giggles, and fans her mouth, indicating 'spicy'=hot![13:42] Mick Nerido: The philosical question is why is matter mind at all?[13:42] herman Bergson: yes Mick....[13:43] herman Bergson: We look at the astonishing fact that we live in a completely material universe[13:43] herman Bergson: Every atom is as dead as a duck..[13:43] Clint Pheocene: yes what advantage do qualitative states provide to the functioning of the mechanical brain?[13:43] herman Bergson: And yet..here we are conscious...[13:44] herman Bergson: That is a big discussion Clint, yes...[13:44] Mick Nerido: yet life comes from inanimate matter[13:44] herman Bergson: I am still working on that issue....because I don't like the qualia turn at all :-)[13:44] Clint Pheocene: life can be explained in terms of inanimate matter but not consciousness....for example, philosophical zombies are perfectly explained by todays physics[13:45] herman Bergson: oh my...the zombie thought experiment...[13:45] herman Bergson: I am still trying to figure out how to deal with that stidetrack, Clint ㋡[13:45] herman Bergson: This project is a matter of work in progress ^_^[13:46] Clint Pheocene: absolutely...we have a long way to go[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes , but it is fascinating...[13:47] Mick Nerido: What does it all mean, Herman?[13:47] herman Bergson: when they can replace braincells by a chip which participates in the brian processes....where does it lead to...[13:47] herman Bergson: What do you mean Mick ...with 'all'[13:48] Pirie Takacs thinks...but, the fact that a body can live, and it's made up of inanimate atoms - maybe we are looking at atoms the wrong way? Maybe we don't yet know all the PARTS that make us up?[13:48] Mick Nerido: Is the universe meaningful in you view?[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes Pirie that could be pretty well the case[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: there is a story about the dna[13:48] herman Bergson: No Mick...the universe has no meaning or purpose at all[13:49] herman Bergson: it is just there as far as I can understand[13:49] Mick Nerido: But there is no proof..[13:49] herman Bergson: Proof of what?[13:50] Mick Nerido: So we can still speculate...[13:50] herman Bergson: smiles...[13:50] herman Bergson: yes we can Mick...[13:50] herman Bergson: And Sybyle...[13:50] herman Bergson: there is one interesting observation....[13:51] herman Bergson: evolution has configured molecules in all kinds of ways...[13:51] Sybyle Perdide: sure[13:51] herman Bergson: and in such a way now and then so that there was created a completely new feature...[13:51] herman Bergson: like molecules got organized in DNA strings....[13:52] herman Bergson: or in such a way that consciousness emerged[13:52] Sybyle Perdide: the scientists tried to decode the dna.. and thought, they could be able to understand when decoded[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes maybe we are looking in the wrong direction to understand the relation between brain and consciousness[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: but when done, they have to recognize there are more levels more structures to decode[13:53] Mick Nerido: Consciousness could be a side effect[13:53] Sybyle Perdide: nice..isn't it?[13:53] herman Bergson: There is at least so much understanding of DNA that we can maipulate genes and change living organisms[13:54] Pirie Takacs believes that all animals have a consciousness, albeit some not as sophisticated as others[13:54] Clint Pheocene: do shrimp have consciousness?[13:54] herman Bergson: That would lead to a discussion on the definition of consciousness Pirie[13:54] Pirie Takacs: Maybe we should look at why we should have consciousness at all?[13:55] Lizzy Pleides: i think that consciousness is equal and not a sideeffect[13:55] Pirie Takacs: I'n beginning to think it's a necessity for survival.[13:55] Bejiita Imako: but if we hadn't how could we then act and react with our surroundings and do anything[13:55] Clint Pheocene: plants survive without it[13:55] Sybyle Perdide: nods[13:55] herman Bergson: That is what I mean by definition Pirie...[13:56] Clint Pheocene: bejita, we could react just like any computer today[13:56] Bejiita Imako: even an ant must have some sort of conciousness to be able t do hmm well what ants do[13:56] herman Bergson: when you define consciousness as a mechanism which enables the organism to interact with its environment effectively you are right[13:56] Bejiita Imako: aha[13:56] herman Bergson: but consciousness is more....[13:56] Pirie Takacs nods... There are many parts to the definition, I think :)[13:57] herman Bergson: most important feature is self-awareness for instance[13:57] herman Bergson: if you make that part of the definition , most organisms do not have consciousness[13:58] Pirie Takacs: Hm,. But if we have no self-awareness, how can we have consciousness at all? We must be able to separate ourselves from others and other things in our environment - thus we label them, and gather info about them[13:58] herman Bergson: they have an awareness of their environment...sure[13:58] Bejiita Imako: aha[13:59] herman Bergson: There you use self-awareness as one of the defining features of consciousness Pirie[13:59] Mick Nerido: A computer can not be self aware?[14:00] Pirie Takacs: Yes. Atm, I believe I would include that...*isn't 100% sure though[14:00] herman Bergson: no....[14:00] herman Bergson: But that will be for a next lecture Mick....[14:00] Mick Nerido: perhaps it could be programed in...[14:00] Clint Pheocene: then it would only behave as if it were self aware[14:00] herman Bergson: I don't think it was easy today ..but a very good discussion, I would say :-)[14:01] Bejiita Imako: a computer is sort of millions of lamp switches in miniature connected together and do everything by binary math but simply switch from on to off and back on[14:01] herman Bergson: Thank you all for your participation again..[14:01] Bejiita Imako: and a lamp switch cant be conscious what i know[14:01] Ciska Riverstone: Thank you Herman and all[14:01] Sybyle Perdide: you were great Herman.as always[14:01] Mick Nerido: Wonderful class thanks[14:01] herman Bergson: Class dismissed after Bejiita has finished ^_^[14:01] Bejiita Imako: hehe now this was interesting[14:01] Clint Pheocene: thanks everyone[14:01] Lizzy Pleides: Thank you Herman, it was great today[14:01] Bejiita Imako: gt more and more great[14:02] herman Bergson: thank you...[14:02] Bejiita Imako: \o/[14:02] Bejiita Imako: || Hoooo![14:02] Bejiita Imako: / \[14:02] Bejiita Imako: tnx Herman[14:02] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:02] Bejiita Imako: now u gave me a lot to think about[14:02] Bejiita Imako: hehe[14:02] Pirie Takacs: Are there any books/authors/philosophers we could read about this, Herman?[14:02] Clint Pheocene: when is the next cl;ass?[14:02] herman Bergson: Tuesday, Clint[14:02] herman Bergson: same time same place[14:02] Clint Pheocene: great[14:03] Bejiita Imako: ㋡[14:03] herman Bergson: There are tons of books Pirie...[14:03] Ciska Riverstone: bye everyone[14:03] herman Bergson: Bye Ciska ㋡[14:03] Bejiita Imako: bye all[14:03] Bejiita Imako: cu soon again[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: bye cis[14:03] Lizzy Pleides: By e Bej[14:04] herman Bergson: I have a whole library of PDF files on the subject....[14:04] herman Bergson: hundreds of titles[14:04] Clint Pheocene: try David Chalmers and perhaps Daniel Dennett? I havent read their works yet[14:04] herman Bergson: That is heavy stuff Clint...[14:04] herman Bergson: Chalmers and Dennett don't agree with eachother[14:04] Clint Pheocene: yes that was my intention[14:04] Clint Pheocene: i agree with Chalmers[14:05] herman Bergson: I still don't know how to evaluate the different points of view of these two...[14:05] Clint Pheocene: from what i can read of their wikipedia page that is lol[14:05] herman Bergson: interesting[14:05] Pirie Takacs: Oh, I don't need them to agree - it may be better if they don't. I get more opinions then...*grins[14:05] herman Bergson: oh I have better places to go for you...[14:05] herman Bergson: got a minute?[14:06] herman Bergson: Then I'll fetch a few URLs for you[14:06] herman Bergson: Really top of the bill academic material[14:06] Pirie Takacs: Ok...*eyes light up.[14:06] herman Bergson: http://plato.stanford.edu/[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.iep.utm.edu/[14:07] herman Bergson: these two are internet classics[14:07] Pirie Takacs: Thank you...*adds them to her list of Favourites[14:07] herman Bergson: http://www.ditext.com/encyc/frame.html[14:08] herman Bergson: Stanford and IEP are the best and most scientific[14:08] Pirie Takacs: I used to have access to university libraries, but now I don't, as I'm not studying at the moment...*sighs sadly[14:09] Clint Pheocene: well there are lots of pdf versions of books on consciousness you can donwload... [14:09] herman Bergson: Indeed Clint![14:11] Clint Pheocene: alright see you next class everyone…byw[14:11] Clint Pheocene: *bye[14:11] Pirie Takacs: Bye :)[14:11] herman Bergson: Bye Clint[14:11] Clint Pheocene: LOL then im me ill send you a few links[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: bye clint[14:11] herman Bergson: thnx for your participation[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: Bye Pirie[14:11] Clint Pheocene: thanks professor...bye[14:12] Lizzy Pleides: just waiting for Sybyle[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: I am here[14:13] herman Bergson: Bye Lizzy, Sybyle[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Herman[14:13] Sybyle Perdide: good bye Pirie[14:13] Lizzy Pleides: good bye Herman![14:13] Pirie Takacs: Bye, sybyle :)
Typical for the philosophy of mind is, that its theory is contrary to our common sense believes. Most people assume some kind of dualism. Life has a mental part and a physical part.
Yet, despite this common sense psychology, dualism is widely rejected as a plausible theory to explain consciousness or the mind. Of course there still are one or two philosophers who still stick to dualism. We'll come to that later.
The dualist view is not a typical product of Western philosophy. A lot of Asian philosophies use the dualist vocabulary like most of our discussions are still about body and mind.
Although we are locked in in the dualistic vocabulary, we have to look for plausible alternatives for dualism.
Descartes claimed that there were two substances. A weaker claim is that there are not two different substances, mind and matter,but at least two different properties, mental and physical properties.
The later, however, still keeps a lot of the problems, which we had with substance dualism. So, what is the alternative? The answer is 'monism'.
There do not exist two, but only ONE ('monos' -greek) substance in our universe. Thus, somehow we have to explain the existence of the mind from that one substance.
The next step in the philosophy of mind was to say: ok, then we pick one of the two. Our universe, as we know it, is either made of mental stuff or of material stuff. The Cartesian way of thinking.
In this choice you see maybe the oldest controversy in the theory of knowledge, epistemology: is what we really know constituted by the ratio, the mind or by the senses?
So one group of philosophers chose for the idea that eventually everything you experience, what you call reality, is mental. This is called idealism.
Metaphysical idealism is an ontology that holds that reality itself is essentially spirit or consciousness or, at least, that abstractions and laws are more basic to reality than the things we perceive.
Epistemological idealism is the view that reality can only be known through ideas, that only psychological experience can be apprehended by the mind.
Notable modern western idealist philosophical movements include; early idealists such as George Berkeley and Gottfried Leibniz, the late 18th-19th century German idealists, including Immanuel Kant, G. W. F. Hegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling and Arthur Schopenhauer.
and mid 19th-early 20th century British idealism, a species of absolute idealism whose leading figures were T.H. Green, F. H. Bradley and Bernard Bosanquet, succeeded by J. M. E. McTaggart, H. H. Joachim, J. H. Muirhead and G. R. G. Mure.
The 20th century British scientist Sir James Jeans wrote that "the Universe begins to look more like a great thought than like a great machine". A typical example of idealist metaphysics.
This philosophical assumption, that the MIND is really the place to be for us, has deep roots. Plato's theory of forms is already one of the first examples.
Immanuel Kant, of course, with his transcendental idealism is a textbook example. Only because the mind contains these a prior categories, like causality, extension, space and time, we can perceive a reality.
"… if I remove the thinking subject, the whole material world must at once vanish because it is nothing but a phenomenal appearance in the sensibility of ourselves as a subject, and a manner or species of representation." — Critique of Pure Reason A383. This quote illustrates this kind of metaphysical and epistemological thinking perfectly.
When mentioning Kant, you can believe that this Idealism has been very influential, especially in the 19th century.
However, at this moment idealism has no real philosophical significance anymore due to the immense developments in science, which makes it preposterous to suggest that reality is all spiritual.
Or to finish with a one-liner: Is it the mind that shapes what we call reality or is it reality, that shapes the mind?
The Discussion
[13:23] herman Bergson: Thank you... ㋡
[13:24] herman Bergson: I can understand that I have left you speachles now...:-)
[13:25] herman Bergson: But if you have a question or so..plz feel free :-)
[13:25] Qwark Allen: ehhehe indeed
[13:25] Sybyle Perdide: there is these example with a dream of a butterfly..it sound similar
[13:26] herman Bergson: you mean that butterfly that causes a hurricane on the other side of the earth?
[13:26] Sybyle Perdide: no
[13:26] Ciska Riverstone: maybe the bug from kafka?
[13:26] Sybyle Perdide: am I a woman dreaming to be a butterly, or a butterfly dreaming to be a woman rembering to eb a butterfly
[13:27] Sybyle Perdide: I never found the solution
[13:27] druth Vlodovic: continuity seems to be the best indicator
[13:27] herman Bergson: That is a typical example, Sybyle
[13:28] herman Bergson: of what this option for the mental leads to...
[13:28] Velvet (velvet.braham): So, idealism is an antiquated philosophy.
[13:28] Velvet (velvet.braham): effectively disproved
[13:28] herman Bergson: In my opinion , yes Velvet....
[13:28] Velvet (velvet.braham): or am I oversimplifying?
[13:28] druth Vlodovic: lots pf people in sl like to believe it, but it can be hard to explore the idea with them
[13:29] Velvet (velvet.braham): I think you're right, druth!
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well today I picked some books from my bookshelves...
[13:29] herman Bergson: the ones which I read when I was 18...
[13:29] herman Bergson: I loved german idealism then....
[13:30] herman Bergson: Kant, Fichte , Hegel...
[13:30] herman Bergson: That language....
[13:30] herman Bergson: So abstract....
[13:30] herman Bergson: Now I regard it as a kind of poetry...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Take Fichte....
[13:31] herman Bergson: He states that the "I" poses itself and thus creates reality...
[13:31] herman Bergson: But that is too static...
[13:32] herman Bergson: so he also introduces a non - I...
[13:32] druth Vlodovic: it would be pretty lonely otherwise
[13:32] herman Bergson: and the dynamics of reality generated from the clash between the I and th enon-I in a synthesis...
[13:33] herman Bergson: brilliant words ..real poetry... but in my eyes a waste of intellectual energy
[13:33] Sybyle Perdide: it sounds a bit like a mind game
[13:33] herman Bergson: Hegel adopted Fichte's dialectics...
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well already in his days, Syblye people thought that something wasn't right with this line of thinking...
[13:34] herman Bergson: There is an anecdote about Hegel...
[13:35] herman Bergson: His thesis - antithesis - syntheses didn't fit physical insights at that moment...
[13:35] herman Bergson: scientific insights in physics...
[13:36] herman Bergson: Hegel was asked about that....that reality didn't fit his model..
[13:36] herman Bergson: his answer : "To bad for reality then.."
[13:37] Velvet (velvet.braham): I kind of like Hegel a little more now.
[13:37] Velvet (velvet.braham): heh
[13:37] herman Bergson: The idealists , well some, looked down on emperical evidence...
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: : )
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: but.. mustn't there become a discrepancy, if doing so?
[13:37] herman Bergson: In the philosophy of science idealism is a dead corps
[13:38] herman Bergson: not a plausible philosophy at all..
[13:38] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:38] herman Bergson: But in a way it is a legacy of descartes....and rationalism...
[13:39] herman Bergson: the belief that the RATIO is the ultimate determining factor
[13:40] herman Bergson: I think that we are past that station...that the paradigma has changed considerably
[13:41] herman Bergson: I am pleased to see that you are all content with this :-)
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: well ;)
[13:41] herman Bergson: Well?
[13:41] Ciska Riverstone: not really
[13:41] herman Bergson: smiles at Ciska
[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: but for the moment i just wait for the "how it should be" then
[13:42] herman Bergson: smiles
[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: i do not think idealism is dead
[13:42] Ciska Riverstone: we will see ㋡
[13:42] druth Vlodovic: let's hear your view ciska
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well....indeed..we'll see
[13:43] Ciska Riverstone: well- right now there is nothing which convinces me of materialism
[13:43] herman Bergson: Ok...then we'll see next class what alternative we have...
[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: i just want to see how herman develops that further on ㋡
[13:44] herman Bergson: Very true Ciska...
[13:44] Velvet (velvet.braham): cliffhanger!
[13:44] druth Vlodovic: aww, I want a fight
[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: Next lecture will offer you the first arguments
[13:44] Ciska Riverstone: ㋡
[13:44] Sybyle Perdide: it will stay interesting
[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: as long as we do not have those they are hard to attack druth ;)
[13:45] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Thanks, I read this later...
[13:45] Velvet (velvet.braham): first arguments opposing idealism?
[13:45] Qwark Allen: very nice to follow the all discussion
[13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Velvet....
[13:45] Velvet (velvet.braham): thank you
[13:45] Ciska Riverstone: thank you herman thanks folks
[13:45] Velvet (velvet.braham): now we're talkin'
[13:45] herman Bergson: tho there hardly are arguments needed to oppose idealism...
[13:45] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:46] Sybyle Perdide: thank you Herman
[13:46] Ladyy Haven (ladyy.haven) is Offline
[13:46] herman Bergson: science does....
[13:46] Velvet (velvet.braham): right
[13:46] herman Bergson: So thank you all for your participation..
[13:47] herman Bergson: Class dismissed...
[13:47] Velvet (velvet.braham): Thank you very much!
[13:47] herman Bergson: Now I gonna fight with Druth...^_^
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: yayy!
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: waitasec...
[13:47] herman Bergson: grins at Druth
[13:47] druth Vlodovic: eek!
Today I want to present to you a very common explanation of consciousness. Consciousness has different meanings. We are conscious or asleep, for instance.
But in our discourse I define consciousness as a personal realm of subjective experiences… that is….what I hear,smell, taste, feel and see. Some philosophers call it "phenomenal consciousness"
Let's look at a general process…. Your eyes see a bird. The image is projected on the retina in the eye. The data are transmitted to the brain and in the brain you have the image of that bird.
"I can picture it in my mind.." is a common expression. What it all boils down to is the common sense theory of the Inner Theater. We tend to believe that we are a kind of watching an inner screen.
Is consciousness indeed something like that. Does the Inner Theater theory explain consciousness?
The odd thing with this common believe about consciousness and how it works, is, that everybody can see that it is completely false, that the brain doesn't work like that, but yet love to use it.
There is plenty of empirical counter-evidence. The cutaneous rabbit illusion, for instance, is a tactile illusion evoked by tapping two separate regions of the skin.
A rapid sequence of taps delivered first near the wrist, and then near the elbow creates the sensation of sequential taps hopping up the arm from the wrist towards the elbow, although no physical stimulus was applied between the two actual stimulus locations.
If there is an inner theater of consciousness at which we receive sensory messages from the outlying senses, the images should show up on the screen in the order they come in from the exterior sources.
But that is not the case at all… Say you feel 12 taps on your arm, moving from wrist to elbow. Only tap 1, 6 and 12 are real taps. The brain fills in tap 3, 4 and 6. But how can it do that, if it not also knows tap 6?
Likewise we have auditory illusions where the brain fools us with respect to the order of incoming sensory data. A sound that seems to move through the room from the left to the right speaker and back, for instance.
A movie is a series of still images, but yet we see movement. We have a plethora of visual tricks, which create illusions that only can be cooked up by the brain by manipulating the order of the incoming data. Movies and TV are the simplest examples.
Ok…Let's test the inner theater some more. Imagine a soldier. There he is on your inner screen, standing there with his weapon.
Now answer a few questions honestly. Don't fill them in flanks after the question. You have to know the answer , that is see your soldier, before I ask the question.
[13:21] herman Bergson: Ok..you have imagined your soldier...on your inner screen?
[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: yes
[13:21] Pirie Takacs: Yes
Has your soldier scares? Are there decorations and medals on his uniform jacket? Does he wear a helmet? What color is his jacket? And his pants? Are there buttons on his jacket and if how many?
If you were looking at a real picture you could have answered all the questions easily, but that is not how imagination works…there is no inner screen with a picture.
[13:22] herman Bergson: I guess you had no answer to a few of the questions
[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: if i look at my inner screen i cant answer all questions
[13:23] herman Bergson: exactly...
[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:23] Mick Nerido: mine was a green toy solder
[13:23] herman Bergson: because there is no inner screen :-)
Where do you think your inner theater is???
Yes…in your head…somewhere behind your eyes, isn't it?
That believe is just a cultural indoctrination. The Egyptians mummified their pharaos. Mummified the heart, the liver and kidneys, but removed the brain from the skull….useless in an afterlife. That was not the place where the mind resides, according to them.
In neurobiology we find no indication of a location in the brain where all things come together as in an inner theater in the brain.
There are motoric areas, language areas and so on in the brain, but not some kind of central unifying processor.
The inner theater idea works only for sight. If it were a correct description of consciousness it should work for all senses. But what pictures do you see with taste or smell?
When the eye sees something, the image is said to be projected on the inner screen. But then there must be somebody who is watching that screen! The inner me! And should that inner me not have its own Inner Theater too with an inner me2, watching …and so on?
A dead end street, it seems. This theory doesn't answer our questions. Dualism wasn't an answer either. So we might end up with the conclusion, that the mind is a property, a feature of the brain.
That offers us a mountain of new questions…..
The Discussion
[13:28] herman Bergson: So much on our first attempt to close in on consciousness...
[13:29] herman Bergson: The floor is yours....
[13:29] Doodus Moose: sometimes, when i fall asleep -
[13:29] Doodus Moose: and start to dream - i can see an image form
[13:29] Doodus Moose: ...but immediately wake up
[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: (sorry have to leave - real life needs me - have a good discussion all)
[13:29] Doodus Moose: a VERY crude version of this image stays in my "eyes" if i keep them closed
[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Doodus...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Maybe it is not an image, but a description....
[13:30] herman Bergson: a description is always incomplete...
[13:30] herman Bergson: Like you imagined the soldier...
[13:30] herman Bergson: it wasn't a clean clear cut picture...
[13:30] Doodus Moose: it's monochrome (usually brownish), and mostly outlines
[13:30] herman Bergson: but you could have given a description
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: i think our brain is lazy and only sees some features
[13:31] Doodus Moose: yes
[13:31] Mick Nerido: illiterate people "see" the world differently.
[13:31] herman Bergson: to call the brain lazy is an evaluation produced by the brain….funny :-)
[13:31] Qwark Allen: ehehhe
[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: lol
[13:32] herman Bergson: I don't call my brain lazy ^_^
[13:32] Qwark Allen: we don`t see the all picture, we focalize
[13:32] Qwark Allen: then the brain fills the blank points
[13:32] Qwark Allen: very complex
[13:32] herman Bergson: we don't see pictures at all I would say Qwark...
[13:32] Mick Nerido: we see what we think is there...the gorella in the room experiment..
[13:33] herman Bergson: We can give descriptions of things we imagine
[13:33] Qwark Allen: we have a restricted vision of the surrounding
[13:33] Qwark Allen: we see a infidecimal part of nature
[13:33] Doodus Moose: does self-hypnosis play in the theater of the mind?
[13:33] Doodus Moose: (or hypnosis, for that matter)
[13:33] Qwark Allen: cause of our restricted vision
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: isn't it a special quality to imagine more than average?
[13:34] herman Bergson: Well, Lizzy, I would say that artists do?
[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: yes, i would say that
[13:35] herman Bergson: But the main point is, that our consciousness is not a kind of screen we are looking at
[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: nods
[13:35] herman Bergson: in the brain there even is a part that can be pointed out as the unifying control center...
[13:36] herman Bergson: this is a great mystery of the brain...
[13:36] herman Bergson: Francis Crick (if I spell his name right)
[13:36] Mick Nerido: What is control center?
[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: its not only controlling, it also selects and combines, I would say
[13:37] herman Bergson: has the theory that tis unity occurs when certain parts of the brain all are at 40Mhz vibrairion or so...
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well, Mick...
[13:37] herman Bergson: You experience yourself as a whole..a unity...
[13:38] herman Bergson: but in brainscans they can't find that ONE spot...where all comes together
[13:38] herman Bergson: so
[13:38] herman Bergson: our consciousness tells us we are one...
[13:39] herman Bergson: but physiologically in the brain...there is not such a thing
[13:39] herman Bergson: just a multitude of areas that fire
[13:39] lentelies Anatine is Offline
[13:40] herman Bergson: The difficulty of the question after consciousness is really breath taking...
[13:40] herman Bergson: But I wont give up ^_^
[13:40] herman Bergson: Next lecture on coming Thursday ^_^
[13:41] Doodus Moose: (just to share)
[13:41] Doodus Moose: i had a vision of a wall of glass
[13:41] Doodus Moose: along with the vision was orders to build a house
[13:41] Qwark Allen: was very interesting today herman
[13:41] Doodus Moose: i'm ill-equipped to do so,
[13:41] Adriana Jinn: it is really interesting
[13:41] Doodus Moose: but..... today i live in that house (which i designed)
[13:42] herman Bergson: ok Doodus
[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: it is an exciting theme
[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: will you continue this, herman?
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy and we are closing in on the hot spot of it...:-)
[13:42] Pirie Takacs: You say that unity occurs after - is it some- parts of the brain fire at 40mhz, couldnt it be that the whole of the brain IS the centre of unity?
[13:43] herman Bergson: But of course Sybyle...
[13:43] herman Bergson: We only saw the top of the iceberg
[13:43] Adriana Jinn: that is such a difficult theme
[13:43] Sybyle Perdide: yay
[13:43] Adriana Jinn: but real interesting
[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: and i hope we are not the titanic
[13:43] Mick Nerido: Yes Pirie!
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes it is difficult...but a worthwhile challenge!
[13:44] herman Bergson: Ah Pirie....see your remark
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes of course it is the whole brain....
[13:45] herman Bergson: but that doesn't explain a thing about consciousness
[13:45] Pirie Takacs: Then why are we looking for one spot?
[13:45] Mot Mann is Online
[13:45] herman Bergson: nor the feeling we have to be ONE identity
[13:45] Qwark Allen: i have to go
[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: TC qwark
[13:45] Qwark Allen: looking forward for next lecture
[13:45] Qwark Allen: see you tuesday
[13:45] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`
[13:45] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:45] Qwark Allen: see you all sooon
[13:45] Mick Nerido: Bye
[13:46] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark!
[13:46] herman Bergson: No Pirie..it is the other way around...
[13:46] herman Bergson: we experience ourselves as a whole...as one...
[13:46] herman Bergson: when you look at the brain....
[13:47] herman Bergson: there is nowhere on fMRI scans one big red dot all the time present...
[13:47] herman Bergson: just a number of firing areas...
[13:47] Pirie Takacs nods
[13:48] Doodus Moose: like a lightning storm (almost)
[13:48] herman Bergson: so on the one hand we may say that I am my brain...
[13:48] Kicki Spingflower is Online
[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: may I ask..
[13:48] herman Bergson: on the other hand I dont know how my brain generates this one personal identity experience
[13:48] herman Bergson: what we call self awareness
[13:49] herman Bergson: You had a question Sybyle
[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: what about babies?
[13:50] Sybyle Perdide: do they see themselves also as aunit?
[13:50] Sybyle Perdide: or must they learn
[13:50] Janette Shim is Offline
[13:50] herman Bergson: a difficult question.....
[13:51] herman Bergson: the human being is after birth a developing organism
[13:51] herman Bergson: self awareness and a feeling of personal identity...the THIS IS ME feeling emerges during the development of the organism
[13:52] herman Bergson: The only thing you can say for sure is, that it will emerge eventually in every human being
[13:52] herman Bergson: I mean....that is what the brain develops into...
[13:52] Sybyle Perdide: thank you
[13:53] Doodus Moose: "the human mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be set alight"
[13:53] herman Bergson: that is a nice metaphor Doodus...
[13:54] SonolaLuna Greymoon is Online
[13:54] herman Bergson: the human being , from birth, is a developing organism in interaction with its environment and learning to survive
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate is Online
[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: can we say the brain is always in a changing process that never ends?
[13:55] herman Bergson: If you look at evolution Lizzy, the answer should be YES...
[13:55] Doodus Moose: thanks everyone, for a good discussion ;-)
[13:55] Pirie Takacs: Surely it must be the firing of the brain as a whole, so maybe it is a mistake to look for the 'one' place, I am thinking. Maybe the entire function of the brain is to 'be' us, and the parts we can isolate and attribute our separate functioning processes to are just that, only parts that make up the reason our brain exists in the first place - to run our bodies and to give us a sense of 'self' or consciousness? I apologise if my question sounds silly.
[13:55] herman Bergson: thank you Doodus
[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus is Offline
[13:56] herman Bergson: smiles at Pirie....
[13:57] herman Bergson: You just committed a sin ^_^
[13:57] Pirie Takacs blushes
[13:57] herman Bergson: Even though your name tag says Innocent ...:-)
[13:57] liessllvontrapp Resident is Offline
[13:57] herman Bergson: You offended against ~rule 5 :-)
[13:58] Pirie Takacs: Maybe I should change it to dumb, as a warning... *smiles contritely
[13:58] herman Bergson: no no....dont!
[13:58] herman Bergson: We are a small group now...so no problem...
[13:58] ellenilli Lavendel is Offline
[13:59] Pirie Takacs: Well.. I just have a problem with philosophy at times being a little less than practical, for me :)
[13:59] herman Bergson: I only mean that it doesnt work to drop large peices of text in a discussion like this...
[13:59] Pirie Takacs: I do apologise
[14:00] herman Bergson: no no...it is ok...you are rather new here...
[14:00] herman Bergson: you are excused
[14:00] Pirie Takacs: I only asked because I thought we could
[14:00] Omei Qunhua is Online
[14:00] Pirie Takacs: It is my first visit, yes
[14:00] Adriana Jinn: even if you are there since sometime it is not easy
[14:01] Adriana Jinn: grrr
[14:01] Adriana Jinn: the english is not easy for me so I dont talk but listening
[14:01] herman Bergson: philosophy isn't less than practical...
[14:01] herman Bergson: In fact it is at the heart of things...
[14:02] herman Bergson: To question the obvious...
[14:02] Pirie Takacs: I agree we need to think about things, but sometimes we need to alter our approach to a question also, I think.
[14:02] herman Bergson: what do you mean by that Pirie?
[14:03] herman Bergson: alter our approach to a question
[14:03] Pirie Takacs: Well, if we continue to look at a problem the same way and can't find an answer like that, maybe we need to look at the problem from a new angle?
[14:03] Adriana Jinn: it is very interesting but unfortunately have to go
[14:04] Adriana Jinn: thanks a lot herman see you soon
[14:04] Adriana Jinn: bye bye all
[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: au revoir Adriana
[14:04] Pirie Takacs: Bye :)
[14:04] herman Bergson: Bye Adriana
[14:04] Lizzy Pleides: bye Adriana
[14:04] Adriana Jinn: au revoir
[14:04] herman Bergson: Ohhh....
[14:04] herman Bergson: there you really hit bull's eye Pirie!
[14:05] herman Bergson: We have our language...
[14:05] herman Bergson: our way to describe mental things like emotions, experiences and so on..
[14:06] herman Bergson: But is it the right way of describing things?
[14:06] herman Bergson: Don't we need another "language" to describe the ways of the brain?
[14:06] herman Bergson: For example....
[14:07] Omei Qunhua is Offline
[14:07] herman Bergson: in the Middle Ages all kinds of things happened because of curses by whitches
[14:07] herman Bergson: illnesses were send by god to punish the sinners...
[14:07] herman Bergson: today we speak a totally different language....
[14:08] herman Bergson: illensses are caused by virusses
[14:08] herman Bergson: we dont cure them by endless praying..we use antibiotics..
[14:08] Pirie Takacs chuckles.. Some people still believe illnesses are sent by gods to punish us :)
[14:09] herman Bergson: sighs...
[14:09] herman Bergson: I know :-)
[14:09] Pirie Takacs: And such is the power of the mind that sometimes prayer does seem to 'cure' you... *smiles
[14:09] Pirie Takacs: I know what you are saying, but I was thinking more of asking the questions from another angle.
[14:09] herman Bergson: True...I admit that we do not at all understand the working of the mind
[14:09] Pirie Takacs: Possibly, but also in the questions we ask about the brain. If thinking there 'must' be a centre where our consciousness springs from is maybe an assumption only?
[14:10] herman Bergson: Yes..it is ...produced by that same brain...
[14:10] herman Bergson: so we have to find some explanation for it...
[14:11] herman Bergson: We still have a lot of lectures to go ^_^
[14:11] Sybyle Perdide: smiles
[14:11] Sybyle Perdide: I hope so
[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: yes we have , thank you for this lesson today Herman
[14:11] herman Bergson: oh ..dont worry Sybyle ^_^
[14:12] Pirie Takacs: K. I hope I can make it to all of them :)
[14:12] herman Bergson: My pleasure Lizzy!
[14:12] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^ 
Today I want to present to you a very common explanation of consciousness. Consciousness has different meanings. We are conscious or asleep, for instance.But in our discourse I define consciousness as a personal realm of subjective experiences… that is….what I hear,smell, taste, feel and see. Some philosophers call it "phenomenal consciousness"Let's look at a general process…. Your eyes see a bird. The image is projected on the retina in the eye. The data are transmitted to the brain and in the brain you have the image of that bird."I can picture it in my mind.." is a common expression. What it all boils down to is the common sense theory of the Inner Theater. We tend to believe that we are a kind of watching an inner screen.Is consciousness indeed something like that. Does the Inner Theater theory explain consciousness?The odd thing with this common believe about consciousness and how it works, is, that everybody can see that it is completely false, that the brain doesn't work like that, but yet love to use it.There is plenty of empirical counter-evidence. The cutaneous rabbit illusion, for instance, is a tactile illusion evoked by tapping two separate regions of the skin. A rapid sequence of taps delivered first near the wrist, and then near the elbow creates the sensation of sequential taps hopping up the arm from the wrist towards the elbow, although no physical stimulus was applied between the two actual stimulus locations.If there is an inner theater of consciousness at which we receive sensory messages from the outlying senses, the images should show up on the screen in the order they come in from the exterior sources.But that is not the case at all… Say you feel 12 taps on your arm, moving from wrist to elbow. Only tap 1, 6 and 12 are real taps. The brain fills in tap 3, 4 and 6. But how can it do that, if it not also knows tap 6?Likewise we have auditory illusions where the brain fools us with respect to the order of incoming sensory data. A sound that seems to move through the room from the left to the right speaker and back, for instance.A movie is a series of still images, but yet we see movement. We have a plethora of visual tricks, which create illusions that only can be cooked up by the brain by manipulating the order of the incoming data. Movies and TV are the simplest examples.Ok…Let's test the inner theater some more. Imagine a soldier. There he is on your inner screen, standing there with his weapon.Now answer a few questions honestly. Don't fill them in flanks after the question. You have to know the answer , that is see your soldier, before I ask the question.[13:21] herman Bergson: Ok..you have imagined your soldier...on your inner screen?[13:21] Lizzy Pleides: yes[13:21] Pirie Takacs: YesHas your soldier scares? Are there decorations and medals on his uniform jacket? Does he wear a helmet? What color is his jacket? And his pants? Are there buttons on his jacket and if how many?If you were looking at a real picture you could have answered all the questions easily, but that is not how imagination works…there is no inner screen with a picture.[13:22] herman Bergson: I guess you had no answer to a few of the questions[13:22] Lizzy Pleides: if i look at my inner screen i cant answer all questions[13:23] herman Bergson: exactly...[13:23] Sybyle Perdide: nods[13:23] Mick Nerido: mine was a green toy solder[13:23] herman Bergson: because there is no inner screen :-)Where do you think your inner theater is???Yes…in your head…somewhere behind your eyes, isn't it?That believe is just a cultural indoctrination. The Egyptians mummified their pharaos. Mummified the heart, the liver and kidneys, but removed the brain from the skull….useless in an afterlife. That was not the place where the mind resides, according to them.In neurobiology we find no indication of a location in the brain where all things come together as in an inner theater in the brain.There are motoric areas, language areas and so on in the brain, but not some kind of central unifying processor.The inner theater idea works only for sight. If it were a correct description of consciousness it should work for all senses. But what pictures do you see with taste or smell?When the eye sees something, the image is said to be projected on the inner screen. But then there must be somebody who is watching that screen! The inner me! And should that inner me not have its own Inner Theater too with an inner me2, watching …and so on?A dead end street, it seems. This theory doesn't answer our questions. Dualism wasn't an answer either. So we might end up with the conclusion, that the mind is a property, a feature of the brain.That offers us a mountain of new questions…..
The Discussion[13:28] herman Bergson: So much on our first attempt to close in on consciousness...[13:29] herman Bergson: The floor is yours....[13:29] Doodus Moose: sometimes, when i fall asleep -[13:29] Doodus Moose: and start to dream - i can see an image form[13:29] Doodus Moose: ...but immediately wake up[13:29] Ciska Riverstone: (sorry have to leave - real life needs me - have a good discussion all)[13:29] Doodus Moose: a VERY crude version of this image stays in my "eyes" if i keep them closed[13:30] herman Bergson: Well Doodus...[13:30] herman Bergson: Maybe it is not an image, but a description....[13:30] herman Bergson: a description is always incomplete...[13:30] herman Bergson: Like you imagined the soldier...[13:30] herman Bergson: it wasn't a clean clear cut picture...[13:30] Doodus Moose: it's monochrome (usually brownish), and mostly outlines[13:30] herman Bergson: but you could have given a description[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: i think our brain is lazy and only sees some features[13:31] Doodus Moose: yes[13:31] Mick Nerido: illiterate people "see" the world differently.[13:31] herman Bergson: to call the brain lazy is an evaluation produced by the brain….funny :-)[13:31] Qwark Allen: ehehhe[13:31] Lizzy Pleides: lol[13:32] herman Bergson: I don't call my brain lazy ^_^[13:32] Qwark Allen: we don`t see the all picture, we focalize[13:32] Qwark Allen: then the brain fills the blank points[13:32] Qwark Allen: very complex[13:32] herman Bergson: we don't see pictures at all I would say Qwark...[13:32] Mick Nerido: we see what we think is there...the gorella in the room experiment..[13:33] herman Bergson: We can give descriptions of things we imagine[13:33] Qwark Allen: we have a restricted vision of the surrounding[13:33] Qwark Allen: we see a infidecimal part of nature[13:33] Doodus Moose: does self-hypnosis play in the theater of the mind?[13:33] Doodus Moose: (or hypnosis, for that matter)[13:33] Qwark Allen: cause of our restricted vision[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: isn't it a special quality to imagine more than average?[13:34] herman Bergson: Well, Lizzy, I would say that artists do?[13:34] Lizzy Pleides: yes, i would say that[13:35] herman Bergson: But the main point is, that our consciousness is not a kind of screen we are looking at[13:35] Sybyle Perdide: nods[13:35] herman Bergson: in the brain there even is a part that can be pointed out as the unifying control center...[13:36] herman Bergson: this is a great mystery of the brain...[13:36] herman Bergson: Francis Crick (if I spell his name right)[13:36] Mick Nerido: What is control center?[13:37] Sybyle Perdide: its not only controlling, it also selects and combines, I would say[13:37] herman Bergson: has the theory that tis unity occurs when certain parts of the brain all are at 40Mhz vibrairion or so...[13:37] herman Bergson: Well, Mick...[13:37] herman Bergson: You experience yourself as a whole..a unity...[13:38] herman Bergson: but in brainscans they can't find that ONE spot...where all comes together[13:38] herman Bergson: so[13:38] herman Bergson: our consciousness tells us we are one...[13:39] herman Bergson: but physiologically in the brain...there is not such a thing[13:39] herman Bergson: just a multitude of areas that fire[13:39] lentelies Anatine is Offline[13:40] herman Bergson: The difficulty of the question after consciousness is really breath taking...[13:40] herman Bergson: But I wont give up ^_^[13:40] herman Bergson: Next lecture on coming Thursday ^_^[13:41] Doodus Moose: (just to share)[13:41] Doodus Moose: i had a vision of a wall of glass[13:41] Doodus Moose: along with the vision was orders to build a house[13:41] Qwark Allen: was very interesting today herman[13:41] Doodus Moose: i'm ill-equipped to do so,[13:41] Adriana Jinn: it is really interesting[13:41] Doodus Moose: but..... today i live in that house (which i designed)[13:42] herman Bergson: ok Doodus[13:42] Lizzy Pleides: it is an exciting theme[13:42] Sybyle Perdide: will you continue this, herman?[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Lizzy and we are closing in on the hot spot of it...:-)[13:42] Pirie Takacs: You say that unity occurs after - is it some- parts of the brain fire at 40mhz, couldnt it be that the whole of the brain IS the centre of unity?[13:43] herman Bergson: But of course Sybyle...[13:43] herman Bergson: We only saw the top of the iceberg[13:43] Adriana Jinn: that is such a difficult theme[13:43] Sybyle Perdide: yay[13:43] Adriana Jinn: but real interesting[13:43] Lizzy Pleides: and i hope we are not the titanic[13:43] Mick Nerido: Yes Pirie![13:44] herman Bergson: yes it is difficult...but a worthwhile challenge![13:44] herman Bergson: Ah Pirie....see your remark[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes of course it is the whole brain....[13:45] herman Bergson: but that doesn't explain a thing about consciousness[13:45] Pirie Takacs: Then why are we looking for one spot?[13:45] Mot Mann is Online[13:45] herman Bergson: nor the feeling we have to be ONE identity[13:45] Qwark Allen: i have to go[13:45] Lizzy Pleides: TC qwark[13:45] Qwark Allen: looking forward for next lecture[13:45] Qwark Allen: see you tuesday[13:45] Qwark Allen: ¸¸.☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`☆ H E R MA N ☆´ ¯¨☆.¸¸`☆** **☆´ ¸¸.☆¨¯`[13:45] Qwark Allen: ty[13:45] Qwark Allen: see you all sooon[13:45] Mick Nerido: Bye[13:46] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark![13:46] herman Bergson: No Pirie..it is the other way around...[13:46] herman Bergson: we experience ourselves as a whole...as one...[13:46] herman Bergson: when you look at the brain....[13:47] herman Bergson: there is nowhere on fMRI scans one big red dot all the time present...[13:47] herman Bergson: just a number of firing areas...[13:47] Pirie Takacs nods[13:48] Doodus Moose: like a lightning storm (almost)[13:48] herman Bergson: so on the one hand we may say that I am my brain...[13:48] Kicki Spingflower is Online[13:48] Sybyle Perdide: may I ask..[13:48] herman Bergson: on the other hand I dont know how my brain generates this one personal identity experience[13:48] herman Bergson: what we call self awareness[13:49] herman Bergson: You had a question Sybyle[13:49] Sybyle Perdide: what about babies?[13:50] Sybyle Perdide: do they see themselves also as aunit?[13:50] Sybyle Perdide: or must they learn[13:50] Janette Shim is Offline[13:50] herman Bergson: a difficult question.....[13:51] herman Bergson: the human being is after birth a developing organism[13:51] herman Bergson: self awareness and a feeling of personal identity...the THIS IS ME feeling emerges during the development of the organism[13:52] herman Bergson: The only thing you can say for sure is, that it will emerge eventually in every human being[13:52] herman Bergson: I mean....that is what the brain develops into...[13:52] Sybyle Perdide: thank you[13:53] Doodus Moose: "the human mind is not a vessel to be filled, but a fire to be set alight"[13:53] herman Bergson: that is a nice metaphor Doodus...[13:54] SonolaLuna Greymoon is Online[13:54] herman Bergson: the human being , from birth, is a developing organism in interaction with its environment and learning to survive[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate is Online[13:54] Lizzy Pleides: can we say the brain is always in a changing process that never ends?[13:55] herman Bergson: If you look at evolution Lizzy, the answer should be YES...[13:55] Doodus Moose: thanks everyone, for a good discussion ;-)[13:55] Pirie Takacs: Surely it must be the firing of the brain as a whole, so maybe it is a mistake to look for the 'one' place, I am thinking. Maybe the entire function of the brain is to 'be' us, and the parts we can isolate and attribute our separate functioning processes to are just that, only parts that make up the reason our brain exists in the first place - to run our bodies and to give us a sense of 'self' or consciousness? I apologise if my question sounds silly.[13:55] herman Bergson: thank you Doodus[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus is Offline[13:56] herman Bergson: smiles at Pirie....[13:57] herman Bergson: You just committed a sin ^_^[13:57] Pirie Takacs blushes[13:57] herman Bergson: Even though your name tag says Innocent ...:-)[13:57] liessllvontrapp Resident is Offline[13:57] herman Bergson: You offended against ~rule 5 :-)[13:58] Pirie Takacs: Maybe I should change it to dumb, as a warning... *smiles contritely[13:58] herman Bergson: no no....dont![13:58] herman Bergson: We are a small group now...so no problem...[13:58] ellenilli Lavendel is Offline[13:59] Pirie Takacs: Well.. I just have a problem with philosophy at times being a little less than practical, for me :)[13:59] herman Bergson: I only mean that it doesnt work to drop large peices of text in a discussion like this...[13:59] Pirie Takacs: I do apologise[14:00] herman Bergson: no no...it is ok...you are rather new here...[14:00] herman Bergson: you are excused[14:00] Pirie Takacs: I only asked because I thought we could[14:00] Omei Qunhua is Online[14:00] Pirie Takacs: It is my first visit, yes[14:00] Adriana Jinn: even if you are there since sometime it is not easy[14:01] Adriana Jinn: grrr[14:01] Adriana Jinn: the english is not easy for me so I dont talk but listening[14:01] herman Bergson: philosophy isn't less than practical...[14:01] herman Bergson: In fact it is at the heart of things...[14:02] herman Bergson: To question the obvious...[14:02] Pirie Takacs: I agree we need to think about things, but sometimes we need to alter our approach to a question also, I think.[14:02] herman Bergson: what do you mean by that Pirie?[14:03] herman Bergson: alter our approach to a question[14:03] Pirie Takacs: Well, if we continue to look at a problem the same way and can't find an answer like that, maybe we need to look at the problem from a new angle?[14:03] Adriana Jinn: it is very interesting but unfortunately have to go[14:04] Adriana Jinn: thanks a lot herman see you soon[14:04] Adriana Jinn: bye bye all[14:04] Sybyle Perdide: au revoir Adriana[14:04] Pirie Takacs: Bye :)[14:04] herman Bergson: Bye Adriana[14:04] Lizzy Pleides: bye Adriana[14:04] Adriana Jinn: au revoir[14:04] herman Bergson: Ohhh....[14:04] herman Bergson: there you really hit bull's eye Pirie![14:05] herman Bergson: We have our language...[14:05] herman Bergson: our way to describe mental things like emotions, experiences and so on..[14:06] herman Bergson: But is it the right way of describing things?[14:06] herman Bergson: Don't we need another "language" to describe the ways of the brain?[14:06] herman Bergson: For example....[14:07] Omei Qunhua is Offline[14:07] herman Bergson: in the Middle Ages all kinds of things happened because of curses by whitches[14:07] herman Bergson: illnesses were send by god to punish the sinners...[14:07] herman Bergson: today we speak a totally different language....[14:08] herman Bergson: illensses are caused by virusses[14:08] herman Bergson: we dont cure them by endless praying..we use antibiotics..[14:08] Pirie Takacs chuckles.. Some people still believe illnesses are sent by gods to punish us :)[14:09] herman Bergson: sighs...[14:09] herman Bergson: I know :-)[14:09] Pirie Takacs: And such is the power of the mind that sometimes prayer does seem to 'cure' you... *smiles[14:09] Pirie Takacs: I know what you are saying, but I was thinking more of asking the questions from another angle.[14:09] herman Bergson: True...I admit that we do not at all understand the working of the mind[14:09] Pirie Takacs: Possibly, but also in the questions we ask about the brain. If thinking there 'must' be a centre where our consciousness springs from is maybe an assumption only?[14:10] herman Bergson: Yes..it is ...produced by that same brain...[14:10] herman Bergson: so we have to find some explanation for it...[14:11] herman Bergson: We still have a lot of lectures to go ^_^[14:11] Sybyle Perdide: smiles[14:11] Sybyle Perdide: I hope so[14:11] Lizzy Pleides: yes we have , thank you for this lesson today Herman[14:11] herman Bergson: oh ..dont worry Sybyle ^_^[14:12] Pirie Takacs: K. I hope I can make it to all of them :)[14:12] herman Bergson: My pleasure Lizzy![14:12] herman Bergson: Class dismissed ^_^
We will consider another form of Dualism - property dualism. Whereas substance dualism claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of substances in the world, property dualism claims that there are two fundamentally different kinds of properties in the world. When philosophers use the word "property" they mean, roughly, 'feature'.The ultimate thing we want to understand is consciousness, what it is and where it comes from. Descartes reasoned:1. Minds can be conscious2. No physical object can be consciousTherefore3. Minds are not physical objects.We already have seen that this conclusion leads us into a lot of difficult questions, of which of course the most difficult one is: what kind of stuff is the mind made of and how does this mind-stuff interact or is causally related to the physical body?Let's look at it from a different angle. Let's talk about the distinction between substances and properties. For our purposes, a substance is something which could be the only thing in the universe.My body is therefore a substance, for we can easily imagine a universe which contains only my body. On the other hand, having a mass of, say, 85 kg is not a substance.We cannot imagine a universe which contains 85 kg and NOTHING ELSE. So my body is a substance whereas having a mass of 85 kg is not. Having a mass of 85 kg is a property. More generally, substances have properties.We are quite used to this substance - property dualism. When somebody asks you "who is Mr. Johns?" you describe the person by enumerating a number of properties or features: hair is grey, eyes are blue, tall 1.85 m….etc.According to property dualism, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain. The brain is a physical substance with various physical properties.For example, the typical brain weighs about one kilogram, contains billions of neurons, has a blood supply and so forth. That much is common ground.What is radical about property dualism is that it claims that, besides all these physical properties, the brain has some nonphysical properties.These include being conscious, being in pain, believing that it is Thursday today. In short, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain.Is this a way to maintain dualism? One of the important property dualism views is called epiphenomenalism.According to epiphenomenalism, mental states are nonphysical properties of the brain which are brought about by physical properties of the brain.The distinctive feature of this view is that the nonphysical properties of the brain do not, in turn, bring about physical states of the brain. This seems to solve the interaction problem of substance dualism to some extend.When you see some dangerous animal, you think "Help…danger!" but according to the epiphenomenalist,this thought itself doesn't do anything. It is only the physical states of the brain alone which cause you to run away.Is the mind such a feature of the brain indeed? We still run into the same questions as with substance dualism. How can the physical properties of the brain give rise to nonphysical properties of the brain?We still can ask what the features of nonphysical properties are; how we can observe them, what in the brain creates them, in what sense are they nonphysical?If it is true that mental states, e.g. thoughts or seeing a danger, do not cause physical action, but that it is the brain which does that, we have a problem.We have to give up a few rather common sense observations about ourselves: 1. Some mental states cause actions2. some mental states cause other mental states.Regarding 2 it would look like this according to the epiphenomenalist: You see a danger. This causes the thought "danger". Not your thought of danger causes your fear, but a further physical property of the brain makes the nonphysical property "fear" emerge from the brain.Does this mean that we should regard consciousness as a "epiphenomenon". just a side effect of the physical brain?The Discussionherman Bergson: So much for today :-)herman Bergson: The floor is yours Qwark Allen: ::::::::: * E * X * C * E * L * L * E * N * T * ::::::::::herman Bergson: .herman Bergson: Thank you Qwarkherman Bergson: This is an attempt to save dualism....herman Bergson: Is it saved?Qwark Allen: i`m not sureQwark Allen: but was a good try for sureMick Nerido: Very weird save...herman Bergson: yes but in my opinion you still keep the same problems as with substance dualismGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): hmmmGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): i doubt itherman Bergson: yes Mich...what sounds a bit odd is that consciousness is some kind of side effect of the physical brainherman Bergson: another question is about the semantics....herman Bergson: object + property statements....Lizzy Pleides: if it is a physical or nonphysical property , isn't that also a question of anatomy and histology and physiology?herman Bergson: the quintessential question is ...those properties....do they really exist independent of the mindGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): have to review propertiesherman Bergson: the point is....a tomato is an object.... it exists as a real thing outside the mind...herman Bergson: but when I say this tomato is red.......?herman Bergson: Redness....what is the ontological status of that?herman Bergson: the brain is conscious....herman Bergson: same questionherman Bergson: how do properties exist...?herman Bergson: a tomato doesn't need a conscious observer to exist...herman Bergson: its redness????Lizzy Pleides: detectionherman Bergson: to show the asymmetry…Mick Nerido: I see a tomato and I think "delicious" you might hate tomatos and think "bar vegi"herman Bergson: yes Mick....but can there be the mental state 'delicious' without the tomato?herman Bergson: can there be redness without this tomato....Mick Nerido: I think so yesherman Bergson: this line of questioning has along traditionherman Bergson: You say yes Mick..ok....herman Bergson: How do we see, detect, experience this redness?Mick Nerido: Redness is a light wavelenthLizzy Pleides: as a remind?Lizzy Pleides: it must have been an experience onceherman Bergson: Well Mick just study "The Knowledge argument" of Jackson...forgot his first name:)Mick Nerido: "Delicious" is a learned experience...herman Bergson: That is the most modern atttempt to proof that there must exist nonphysical propertiesherman Bergson: We'll get to that issue later...herman Bergson: What I now only want to bring to your attention isherman Bergson: that we take properties as such obvious things….herman Bergson: but when you really begin to ask questions, philosophical questionsherman Bergson: then properties are not at all such obvious thingsherman Bergson: How do properties exist?herman Bergson: Do they need a mind to be attributed to objects?herman Bergson: Is it a feature of the mind to "see" properties?Mick Nerido: So redness can exist without an observer and is independent condition in this view?herman Bergson: You say that red is a certain wavelength, Mick...Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): like the tree in the forestherman Bergson: well....suppose you never have seen a tomato....herman Bergson: But you know that wavelength X is called to show you redherman Bergson: So you know what red is....the property of an object....wavelength Xherman Bergson: but suppose all of a sudden someone showed you a tomato....herman Bergson: Then you say....ahhhhhh!!! so that is red!herman Bergson: then you know more...not only a wavelength but also another property of the tomatoherman Bergson: This is a very complex problem....herman Bergson: The word that goes with it is "Qualia"Sybyle Perdide: because a tomato is the sum of many propertiesherman Bergson: We'll discuss this issue later...Mick Nerido: If I was color blind to red and could not see red i would be in the dark, so to speak on rednessherman Bergson: Yes sybyle, what is that property "red" now...bergfrau Apfelbaum paid you L$100.Guestboook van tipjar stand: bergfrau Apfelbaum donated L$100. Thank you very much, it is much appreciated!Qwark Allen is OnlineSybyle Perdide: meaningless for yoherman Bergson: It would still be that specific wavelength Mick.you always could pick out red objects with the right equipmentherman Bergson: Well...I guess I am cracking your brains :-)Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• LOL ‚ô•herman Bergson: Maybe a good idea to dig into the term "property" and its history.herman Bergson: Dates back to Aristotle....Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): rightherman Bergson: In the middle ages it was the core of syllogistic logic....bergfrau Apfelbaum: i must go! byebye class! byebye Birthdayherman!herman Bergson: and today it is the child of the "qualia"Lizzy Pleides: bye bergieherman Bergson: Bye BergieCiska Riverstone: bye BergfrauGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): Bye, Bye „ã° herman Bergson: so properties and qualia (= plural of quale) ....nice subject for some weekend reading :-)herman Bergson: and take a copy of the SL Newser too „ã°Ciska Riverstone: „ã°Lilah Morgenstern is Onlineherman Bergson: Thank you all for your attention and participationCiska Riverstone: thank you Hermanherman Bergson: Class dismissed „ã°Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•Gemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): see you next thursdaySybyle Perdide: thanks a lotGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): scrool down on the paperwolk Writer is OfflineGemma Allen (gemma.cleanslate): article about classMick Nerido: Thanks for the brain exercise!Lizzy Pleides: thank you Herman!
